Seriously. Double standards are ridiculous

[–]sycophantasy 611 points612 points613 points 8 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mans_Right_To_Choose 159 points160 points161 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]RunawayGrain 104 points105 points106 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Draestyn1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link

T swizzle can sexually assault me any say of the week homie

[–]Grenesir 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Draestyn 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]-webkit -44 points-43 points-42 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dancing_Anatolia 26 points27 points28 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BlunderSiege 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]fonduman 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eastuss 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_SECERTS 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WalterWhiteRabbit -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mheyk 30 points31 points32 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]send_nasty_stuff 17 points18 points19 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sycophantasy 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lethrowaway4me 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cowboycutout 20 points21 points22 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]awhaling 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]cowboycutout 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]goober_boobz -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MettaAhimsa 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cowboycutout 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fritty44 -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Hawkeyeblock1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Really? And that's not the first famous person that you have run into!

>Gabriel Iglacious toured our college town. He showed up to Perkins at like 2AM while we were eating there after >his show that night. Shot the shit with him, shared a bowl.

You had that in your post history.

Also, according to https://www.setlist.fm/stats/concert-map/macklemore-and-ryan-lewis-3db0107.html?tour=63d2da0f, Macklemore hasn't performed in Iowa in recent history. You do live in Iowa, right?

Or where you lying on this post?

https://www.reddit.com/r/IowaCity/comments/8ardyk/cheapest_gyms_in_iowa_city_for_non_students/

As an Iowan, I am disappointed, man. Also, try not to bathe in your girl's shit anymore. Cheers.

[–]sycophantasy 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Hawkeyeblock -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SirDirtMan 267 points268 points269 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blutarg 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SirDirtMan 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]theoldboiler 56 points57 points58 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Tsuketsu 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Splatriarchy 431 points432 points433 points 8 years ago (109 children) | Copy Link

[–]Irreverent_Alligator 175 points176 points177 points 8 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]lasssilver 134 points135 points136 points 8 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[+]Sic_Transit_Vir1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (12 children) | Copy Link

The phrase "Modern Feminism" doesn't really mean anything. There are many varieties of feminist thought, pursued by a multitude of different people. I'm sure there's a tiny sub-group of people who seriously want a matriarchy, but 99,9% of feminists are all about equality. As concerned as you are about your perceived group being attacked, you're not at all bothered by making wild claims about an other. What's with the fear-based projections?

[–]iainmf 21 points22 points23 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]Sic_Transit_Vir1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

influential ones

refers to anti-feminist manifesto sourced largely with ludicrous right-wing rags that twist some (social media) event a few people may have participated in

Come on, you can't possibly believe all of that stuff in your little manifesto there applies to all feminists - and I mean the stuff that's true and/or not skewed beyond recognition.

You're being afraid of a few internet/college kids. Careful now, that fear is how the Russians get ya.

[–]iainmf 18 points19 points20 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dragoru 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]fonduman -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]40moreyears -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SpikedGIraffe 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nazadus 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The phrase "Modern Feminism" doesn't really mean anything.

In general it means third wave feminism. Feminism is regarded as three waves. First wave was about equal opportunity in the workforce (primarily). Second was about social equality ("Women have every right to be the same place a man does" in general). Third wave is "modern feminism" and is regarded as a superiority movement. Previous movements could be called equality movements because the phrase was often "we want the same X as a man does". Third-wave or "modern feminism" is basically "we want X". Such as having different standards than men or lowering standards (e.g. the military requirements and such, or was it marines?).

Now you, personally, can request a clarification on which type of modern feminism are people talking about -- and that'd be reasonable but to say it doesn't mean anything is dishonest.

Example: Look at Christianity. There was a point in time it was very primitive, violent, and brutal. It's significantly less so now (relative to then). You can regard these as two different periods, can't you? But you could also break it down into, say, Catholics and Protestants (as an example).

You can compare early Reddit to modern Reddit. The hivemind was VERY different.

I'm sure there's a tiny sub-group of people who seriously want a matriarchy

I'd gauge it on par with KKK and other racist groups. Where the right "ignores" the KKK, the left "ignores" the extremist feminism and, often enough caters to them to get votes.

As concerned as you are about your perceived group being attacked, you're not at all bothered by making wild claims about an other.

Are you suggesting that if the genders were reversed things wouldn't be different?

What's with the fear-based projections?

I'm not sure that means what you think it means.

[–]SpikedGIraffe 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]PIG_CUNT -12 points-11 points-10 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]fonduman 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]chadwickofwv 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NordyNed 26 points27 points28 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JestyerAverageJoe 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Irreverent_Alligator 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]evilgeniusthing 16 points17 points18 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jnofx 127 points128 points129 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shippoyasha 18 points19 points20 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ninagram 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for saying not every women does it. I have been grabbed on the butt before, but the worst was when I was laying helpless hours after brain surgery and the male nurse pretended to fuss with the electrodes on my chest and groped/fondled me. I haven't mentioned this or any incident to anyone because I just don't care. Maybe I should have gotten the male nurse in trouble, but I've read female nurses do similar things and don't get in trouble. It's all about perspective. A lot of people really seem to enjoy over-blowing things and thinking of their self as a victim, but I don't think that is helpful. Why would you want to consider yourself a victim and cause yourself mental suffering? In my mind these individuals must have some boundary issues if they feel comfortable touching strangers, but that's not my issue and it is not a big deal, just go on with life. And I agree that many women also touch inappropriately, especially by rubbing up on people "accidentally", especially with their chest, but they don't get called out on it, and men don't let it scar them for life like women do.

[–]awhaling 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ninagram 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There are some interesting studies done about the victim mindset. Here's the abstract of one that found victim mentality caused people to behave more selfishly:

Victim entitlement to behave selfishly. Zitek EM1, Jordan AH, Monin B, Leach FR. Author information Abstract Three experiments demonstrated that feeling wronged leads to a sense of entitlement and to selfish behavior. In Experiment 1, participants instructed to recall a time when their lives were unfair were more likely to refuse to help the experimenter with a supplementary task than were participants who recalled a time when they were bored. In Experiment 2, the same manipulation increased intentions to engage in a number of selfish behaviors, and this effect was mediated by self-reported entitlement to obtain positive (and avoid negative) outcomes. In Experiment 3, participants who lost at a computer game for an unfair reason (a glitch in the program) requested a more selfish money allocation for a future task than did participants who lost the game for a fair reason, and this effect was again mediated by entitlement.

Edit: I remember in the full study (or maybe a different related study) that "victims" were more likely to take the experimenter's pens when the study was over. Could help explain why so many feminists are.. total bitches.

[–]awhaling 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mahbro 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]kittens12345 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]GenericBadGuyNumber3 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fuckoff555 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]GenericBadGuyNumber3 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Fuckoff555 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OnTheSlope 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Splatriarchy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

You're kinda missing the point, here. If strangers harassed me all the fucking time, as happens to many women, it just isn't the same. To loosely paraphrase someone else's essay, men are dying of thirst in a desert, water of course representing attention. Of course they'd appreciate some water. Women are drowning in an ocean-- they do not want more water. You are trying to apply your experiences to their views, and it's never going to line up.

When people ask general questions in my daily life I'm not bothered. But on my 21st birthday, after the 17th person asked me "what it's like being 21?"' It gets pretty fucking annoying. I can see how repeated sexual advances in your daily life could get quite annoying. Add in the somewhat justified fear of physical intimidation in many cases, and things really just aren't the same between me getting my ass grabbed and it happening to me sister.

[–]chadwickofwv 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Splatriarchy 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Splatriarchy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Splatriarchy -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]HIGHer_ENTucation 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sneakpeekbot -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Elvick 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No woman is harassed "all the fucking time". Even if it's "common" for an individual that is not "all the fucking time". And we shouldn't lose the perspective of all the hundreds, if not thousands, of people who don't interact with you at all. And those who interact with you normally.

All we talk about is street harassers, nobody talks about the sea of people minding their own business who are actually there all the fucking time. Nobody wants to acknowledge them, since we'd rather pretend that if a woman walks out of the door every man that she passes is going to assault her physically or with overtly sexual passes.

What dystopia do you think we live in? Get a grip. We're negative creatures, we need to stop being so stupid and acknowledge that and work to focus on keeping perspective. Instead of falling into an infinite loop of negative re-enforcement.

[–]scyth3s 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ex_ray_guy -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wsoj7 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]awhaling 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]awhaling -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]wile_E_coyote_genius 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]awhaling -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]squeakychair 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]coffeeaddicted 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]awhaling 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Fair point. I wasn't necessarily considering it in public, just as an abstract idea for why they feel more threatened while men laugh it off.

I think it's possible to be afraid even if it doesn't make the most logical sense. Also, sexual harassment happened a fair bit in public with zero repercussions. One of my good friends was very drunk at a concert and a few guys started fingering her, it didn’t stop until her friend found her. Just pointing out that things can happen and people don’t jump in to save the day.

On the flip side, in college I saw these types of girls at my fraternity’s parties try and take home black out guys. Happened to one of my best friends. He just kind of laughs it off. If a guy were to do that, everyone dude there would’ve stepped in and stopped it. It’s not remotely acceptable for a guy to that, yet it’s perfectly fine for a girl to.

Men are expected to like it. Fuck, you’ll even be called gay if you don’t. God forbid any man be something other than a creature that can’t resist sex.

[–]Elvick 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]awhaling 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZakuIsAMansName 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fonduman 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]awhaling 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]reddituser257 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DrewFlan-7 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]DenseMahatma -49 points-48 points-47 points 8 years ago* (31 children) | Copy Link

well she can cry sexual assault because it is sexual assault. You can cry sexual assault too, but you don't because apparently, you liked it. She didn't. The double standards aren't about who liked it v who didn't its about men's complaints being taken seriously v women's complaints being taken seriously

Edit: I see they were right, I subscribed to this sub because I thought it was about men's rights, but the distribution of the votes tell me its just a bunch of incels. So let me educate you a little bit. "grabbing" someone's ass without their consent, male or female, is sexual assault and should be frowned upon. Just because the guy above likes to get his ass grabbed by random people doesn't mean everyone does. I don't. If someone grabbed my ass like that, I would also complain to the person, or to the establishment in which the incident happens. The stigma that I should like my ass getting grabbed is actually the whole point. Men are just supposed to take sexual assault while women can complain. We should be able to complain as well, without being questioned about our sexuality or our manlihood.

[–]freedaemons 81 points82 points83 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]JayPx4 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]DenseMahatma -11 points-10 points-9 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]freedaemons 38 points39 points40 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]DenseMahatma -5 points-4 points-3 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]freedaemons 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DenseMahatma 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]freedaemons 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Endless_Summer 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]epelle9 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DenseMahatma 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]stinger503 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FISHneedWATER 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]bobthebowler123 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Kickmekicku 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]feraxil -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]gellis12 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Endless_Summer -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rolten 23 points24 points25 points 8 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]DenseMahatma -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]feraxil -4 points-3 points-2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DenseMahatma 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rolten 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mcavvacm 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Splatriarchy 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Glitsh 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DenseMahatma 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dagobert_The_Second -5 points-4 points-3 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]awhaling 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Dagobert_The_Second 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Splatriarchy -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]awhaling 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dagobert_The_Second 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon 156 points157 points158 points 8 years ago (203 children) | Copy Link

[–]birnbaumdra 48 points49 points50 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SludgeFactory20 39 points40 points41 points 8 years ago (87 children) | Copy Link

[–]crnext 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Elvick 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SludgeFactory20 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tramm 23 points24 points25 points 8 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

It's called egalitarianism, which is about total equality across the board regardless of race or gender. However as I've had it explained to me, at least by someone claiming to be an "inter-sectional feminist", egalitarianism isn't the right fit because they more or less (and I'm paraphrasing here) expect reparations for anyone they feel has been discriminated against (i.e. blacks, women, trans, hispanic, gay and lesbian, etc.) versus blanket equality.

I literally stopped the conversation at that point, but what I took from it was that in her case, she believed that anyone who might have benefited from some perceived privilege in the past should either have their rights diminished or at least put on hold while the others who might be less fortunate are given a chance to "catch up with the privilege."

[–]SludgeFactory20 19 points20 points21 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tramm 20 points21 points22 points 8 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]crnext 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]epelle9 -8 points-7 points-6 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dancing_Anatolia 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]epelle9 -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dank_Meems 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Houdiniman111 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Tramm 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

That's what she went with but I'm not saying ALL feminists believe this way, it was a shallow tinder conversation after all (the conversation was in my post history on r/mensrights but imgur deleted the post for some reason and the image is no longer available).

However, I specifically asked her what the difference was between inter-sectional feminism and an egalitarian after she had said something on her bio along the lines of, "I'm an inter-sectional feminist for total equality!"

She specifically said (from clearest recollection), "Inter-sectional feminism focuses on the rights of women, brown people, and other discriminated groups." And about egalitarianism she specifically said the ideals don't align and said something like, "Egalitarianism is the belief that all people are on the same level and should be treated equally."

There was a bit more to the conversation and explanation, but the points were quite clear. And after seeing that she seemed to at least understand the 'concept' of egalitarianism and she still didn't see how fucked up her "inter-sectional" beliefs were I realized there was no way to really have a debate with this person, much less date them. So I noped the fuck out.

[–]msleeduon 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (72 children) | Copy Link

[–]SludgeFactory20 20 points21 points22 points 8 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rumpadunk 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]maybe82 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SludgeFactory20 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreenToenail 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]SludgeFactory20 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]SludgeFactory20 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]SludgeFactory20 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I would put it this way: the system as it exists was set up under the assumption that ambitious men could be basically exploited on the premise that women would be home doing all the child-rearing. This makes it harder for women to advance but also makes the working lives of (largely men) miserable. The fact that this is more of a problem in some professions and not others shows it's possible to structure things differently. Women will have more opportunity to have both a family and career, and men will have more opportunity to actually enjoy their family life while having a career.

People that demand paid maternity/paternity leave are crazy.

Not at all. A huge amount of bonding happens when a child is an infant, and if you're at work all the time you miss out on it. That tends to redound with age. Fathers deserve to have this chance to be with their kids. And if it were the norm you'd have no reason to engage in the discrimination you said you'd otherwise do.

[–]SludgeFactory202 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]Valencia_Mariana1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

This is a lie. Feminism does not, and has never, meant equality in that way. It means advocating for women's rights in the goal of equality.

Women are now equal to men. Sure, each gender has some advantages and disadvantages but, legally, a woman has all the rights of that a man has (although the reverse is not true). So why are we still pushing woman's rights when we are at a stage where we need to factor in the needs and issues of both genders?

You can defend the term all you like but it is completely redundant. Both from a technical standpoint and from a cultural standpoint.

[–]msleeduon -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ZakuIsAMansName 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

The word feminism has been around since 1896 and has always referred to fighting for gender equality.

well that's not true.

fem·i·nism ˈfeməˌnizəm/Submit noun the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.

sure when the pendulum is swung all the way to one side you need to advocate for the rights of the group without power. but the pendulum is a lot closer to the middle now. keep only pushing one side and you'll never have equality. you'll just have changed the direction the pendulum is swinging.

feminism has always been about the advocacy of women's rights and not men's rights. to the point that feminist groups have campaigns to block new legislature that would even things in family courts between mothers and fathers

how can a group fight for "equality" while fighting against those very same equal rights if it doesn't benefit them?

[–]msleeduon 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

The second half of that definition is equally important, and if you want to gainsay my date I'm all ears; my source is Wikipedia plus a few other credible seeming articles.

I'm a feminist. I care about a lot of issues specific to men. Most feminists I know do too. DOn't know what to tell you.

to the point that feminist groups have campaigns to block new legislature that would even things in family courts between mothers and fathers

Funny you should mention that. This was an issue that wasn't on my radar until about ten minutes ago when someone brought it up. So I did a little googling and found this thread. Have to say I found the arguments against default shared parenting more compelling, not even really on feminist grounds so much as it seemed like a more logical arrangement to do it the way it has been done.

[–]ZakuIsAMansName 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Have to say I found the arguments against default shared parenting more compelling, not even really on feminist grounds so much as it seemed like a more logical arrangement to do it the way it has been done.

inequality is logical now?

I don't think so. my parents are divorced and if my mother was a bitch like my stepmom I wouldn't know my father the way my half brother doesn't know my father.

he spent thousands of dollars just to be able to see his kid once a month for a few years. and then even that stopped.

sorry but no I don't think women should get the default rulings in family court. nothing about it is logical to me. you're welcome to feel differently but I disagree and I don't believe that feminists can say they fight for equality while feminists also campaign against equal rights for fathers.

you seriously don't see any hypocrisy there?

[–]msleeduon 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZakuIsAMansName 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ZakuIsAMansName2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't understand why this is confusing.

you and me both.

There shouldn't be any default.

well there already is. it just benefits women more often than not as the primary caregiver.

It should be divided on the basis of who does what percentage of the childcare.

I disagree. if my mother wanted to have us 90% of the time she could have and we'd barely know our dad. I've seen it happen. its fucked up. so what my dad worked more and couldn't pick us up from school every day. after they split they both had to work so why would it make sense for my mom to get is most of the time? especially now that she couldn't be picking us up form school herself anymore.

why would it have made more sense for my father to pay a babysitter to watch us at my moms house so she could work when he works at home and we could have stayed with him just as easily and gotten to see a parent?

the current default, and what you agree with is messed up and favors women.

honestly I don't think courts can accurately determine what's best for a child. they should let the parents. and if a father wants 50% shared custody he shouldn't have to argue for why he wants it... he should get it. providing they're not unfit. same for the mother.

things change after a divorce, the mother may not be able to lead the same lifestyle as before and be that primary caregiver anymore and courts don't seem to take that into account. why have them sit at the home of one working parent? how is that fair to father's everywhere?

as a kid who's not only lived the situation, but also saw my brother live the other side of it never getting to see his family and having a step father who resents him because he has insecurity issues about my dad? yeah that sounds great for a child. I can firmly say that just because someone is a primary caregiver of a kid at one point doesn't make them the best choice for the child indefinitely...

moreover children don't understand divorce entirely. they just get that 1 parent is gone. and the one who has to leave is the one who suffers by losing that relationship. keeping both parents in their life whenever possible is the right choice. no fit parent should have to fight for custody. that should be a basic right. its no longer a fetus growing inside the woman its not her body its not her choice anymore. its both of theirs equally and it saddens me to see people oppose that. especially people who shout as loud as they can that they fight for equality and the rights of all...

[–]msleeduon2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

well there already is. it just benefits women more often than not as the primary caregiver.

Citation needed. Specifically, to be clear, citation that this is how it works in non-amicable custody hearings.

I disagree. if my mother wanted to have us 90% of the time she could have and we'd barely know our dad. I've seen it happen. its fucked up. so what my dad worked more and couldn't pick us up from school every day. after they split they both had to work so why would it make sense for my mom to get is most of the time? especially now that she couldn't be picking us up form school herself anymore.

Try being raised by a dad who resents the hell out of you. Trust me, it's better to go with the parent who actually prefers to have you around.

honestly I don't think courts can accurately determine what's best for a child

They usually don't.

and if a father wants 50% shared custody he shouldn't have to argue for why he wants it... he should get it. providing they're not unfit. same for the mother.

That's the status quo. Yay.

how is that fair to father's everywhere?

Can you imagine, just for a moment, any situation in which women might actually be screwed over by things as they are? I can. They often are. That your sympathy is this selective is exhausting, because all you're willing to consider are the ways in which men might get screwed, not the extent to which actual when and actual women do get screwed.

as a kid who's not only lived the situation, but also saw my brother live the other side of it never getting to see his family and having a step father who resents him because he has insecurity issues about my dad? yeah that sounds great for a child.

I have to be hyper blunt with you. Your logic is: my stepmom was a bitch, ergo women are all btiches, ergo custody must always favor men. And you know what? I sincerely mean it when I say, I'm sorry for your situation. But man, your situation is not everyone's situation. And the courts don't statistically favor women much if at all in disputed custody hearings. So...really, sorry. But that's not changing my mind on policy.

keeping both parents in their life whenever possible is the right choice

100% agreed.

no fit parent should have to fight for custody

Which is why 95% don't.

its both of theirs equally and it saddens me to see people oppose that.

It should be a matter of splitting time according to who is ready and able to do more of the child-rearing. Ideally 50/50, but not presumptively 50/50. Shoving kids on a parent who isn't ready or willing to take up the burden of dealing with them 50% of the time is unfair to literally everyone involved.

its both of theirs equally and it saddens me to see people oppose that.

I oppose the notion that we should assume both parents have equal time and resources to deal with the kids. We should hope for that, but to the extent it's not true we need to be prepared to accept that life is (usually) more complicated than that.

And to reiterate: I have absolutely no investment in terms of which parent might get more or less custody. I don't care if mom or dad has more time and energy to raise them. I just care that they be raised mroe by the one who does, if that isn't an even split.

[–]ZakuIsAMansName0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

so google it. I have. takes 5 seconds.

Try being raised by a dad who resents the hell out of you.

how does this relate to my point? yes some people have parents who resent them. but did your dad spend thousands to win you in a custody battle? how does it relate to what we're talking about? you're just firing back with emotions.

Trust me, it's better to go with the parent who actually prefers to have you around.

I believe I made that very point... so you're just gonna pretend I didn't and that its your point?

That's the status quo. Yay.

no actually. only in a select few states. the majority go with the primary caregiver which more often than not is the mother.

In custody cases, most states' family courts allow a preference for the parent who can demonstrate that he or she was a child's primary caretaker

https://family.findlaw.com/child-custody/preference-for-the-primary-caretaker.html

please. stop just plugging your ears and going "na na na na na" ...

this is absurd at this point.

Can you imagine, just for a moment, any situation in which women might actually be screwed over by things as they are? I can. They often are. That your sympathy is this selective is exhausting,

what exactly are you talking about now? did you switch your argument to what aboutism because you realized you were losing an argument?

yes, women still face issues in many areas... and there are many feminist organizations like the ones blocking equal rights for men who fight for them. those aren't the issues we were discussing.

because all you're willing to consider are the ways in which men might get screwed, not the extent to which actual when and actual women do get screwed.

if women are being screwed too why do you back the feminist organizations fighting equal rights?

I have to be hyper blunt with you. Your logic is: my stepmom was a bitch, ergo women are all btiches,

no its not... way to miss the point. my mother was the contrast to my step mother in the story. people are people I just don't think that our laws should be so easily taken advantage of by the women who happen to be bitches... I never said all women are bitches. and that is a lame attempt to try to make me out to be some asshole because you've run out of actual points to make.

ergo custody must always favor men.

WHAT!?

how is me saying that custody shouldn't favor women or men possibly being misconstrued like that? you're just flat out lying now.

I sincerely mean it when I say, I'm sorry for your situation. But man, your situation is not everyone's situation. And the courts don't statistically favor women much if at all in disputed custody hearings. So...really, sorry. But that's not changing my mind on policy.

[CITATION NEEDED]

I provided one that says you're wrong. its not explicit in its preference but do to women being the primary caregiver surprise... guess who wins most custody disputes.

Which is why 95% don't.

tell that to all the one's who do!

It should be a matter of splitting time according to who is ready and able to do more of the child-rearing. Ideally 50/50, but not presumptively 50/50. Shoving kids on a parent who isn't ready or willing to take up the burden of dealing with them 50% of the time is unfair to literally everyone involved.

STOP MAKING STRAW MAN ARGUMENTS!

I swear to god you're impossibly frustrating. you lie and manipulate and twist shit. I NEVER SAID FORCE PARENTS TO TAKE KIDS HALF THE TIME!!!!!!

do you get that?

litterally nothing will change in the majority of custody cases as like you said 1 parent isn't trying to get custody. all that will change is that men will be on even footing when they do try to get custody.

why does equality frustrate you so much?

I oppose the notion that we should assume both parents have equal time and resources to deal with the kids.

I never said they did... I oppose everything you stand for. you do nothing but lie and misstate my arguments and try to twist them so you can pretend to win an argument. its disgusting behavior.

we're done. there's no point in discussing anything with you cause you've managed to to lie about about half the things I said and ignored the other half so you can try to be right.

I sincerely urge you to actually think about what I said instead of dismissing it offhand and creating straw man arguments to argue against shit that I never said.

I'm not trying to win an argument here. I'm sincerely hoping that a human can stop and think about human beings other than themselves and see the hypocrisy in fighting against equality under the banner of equality.

Have a good day.

[–]maybe82 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Elvick 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Because men have no identity beyond the average human. Women do.

Man used to refer to any adult. We had "werman" and "wifman" for men and women respectfully. We replaced wifman, with woman and just erased werman's identity and lumped them into the catch all word for all people.

Using "mankind" isn't preferential to men. You "guys" isn't preferential to men either. How is erasing men's identity preferential? If these terms mean everyone, then that means men are left with what?

And girl used to be any human child. But we reduced male children to "boy". Which was a term for servants and slaves. Interesting. Wonder why they picked that word, or why it was changed at all?

Women have special terms beyond humanity. Literally. "Man" is mankind which is humankind. A woman is a female adult. A boy is a male, servant and/or slave. Girl is female children.

And that's somehow a negative? To be hold single ownership of a word? What?

Nevermind the fact men are told to earn their humanity. Being a "real man" is all about that, and it's not men forcing that on each other. Women do it as well.

[–]msleeduon 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Elvick 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]maybe82 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]maybe82 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]maybe822 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Elvick 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]maybe82 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]maybe82 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]maybe82 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]maybe82 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]maybe821 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]Valencia_Mariana1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Don't be silly. Of course, the roots of a word are important! Next, you'll be burning books! C'mon...

[–]msleeduon 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]marauderp 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Valencia_Mariana1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

Considering 'they' take issue with all the things you mentioned, then yes, it is.

Also, how is calling all things good female "feminism" and all things bad male "patriarchy". Can you not see the problem in that for young people?

[–]msleeduon 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]Valencia_Mariana1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

How do you think to call the force for all good in the world 'feminism' (women) and the force for all evil in the world 'patriarchy' (men).

What effect do you think this has on young people, particularly boys?

[–]msleeduon 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Incident-Pit 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Dancing_Anatolia 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Soccitoomee -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Dancing_Anatolia 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tramm 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Vandechoz 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreenToenail 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SludgeFactory20 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nuke42 50 points51 points52 points 8 years ago (64 children) | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (63 children) | Copy Link

[–]Elvick 17 points18 points19 points 8 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon -5 points-4 points-3 points 8 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Elvick 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

It's not an ad hominem, it's true. You're a peon to the leaders of feminism pushing for inequality. This is as clear as day, that's why they train you in university when you're still lacking in life experience to understand anything and easily swayed with "well meaning" bullshit. And that's why they want to shove the propaganda down younger and younger, so it's easier and easier to brainwash new generations into their dogmatic thinking.

How convenient for you that you happen to disagree with shared parenting responsibilities when it favors women. I do wonder if you would feel the same if I plopped you back in time to live when men got sole custody since they were financially responsible.

If you're fine getting rid of child support, then by all means, let's just have default primary custody. Otherwise, get outta here with that nonsense. Because women are going to abuse their position of getting biased favor in family court to prevent fathers from having access to their children. Since that's what many do already.

Child support on top of that is simply cruel and disgusting. You want sole custody, you should be able to support a child on your own income. Otherwise you are not capable of raising that child alone and shouldn't gain custody to begin with.

[–]msleeduon -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

How convenient for you that you happen to disagree with shared parenting responsibilities when it favors women.

One, I don't think that came out the way you meant it. Two, that's not the argument against it I cited.

I do wonder if you would feel the same if I plopped you back in time to live when men got sole custody since they were financially responsible.

Weird presupposition of your own godliness aside, I'm not sure what you think this proves. The case I find compelling is that parents should be awarded custody according to how much work each one puts into the child already rather than to assume 50/50. I have zero investment in which parent that is.

If you're fine getting rid of child support, then by all means, let's just have default primary custody

I didn't argue for default primary custody.

Because women are going to abuse their position of getting biased favor in family court

Statistically, women get custody more because they request it more. Most of those cases are amicable.

Child support on top of that is simply cruel and disgusting.

So either the kid winds up with the poorer parent who has time for them or the richer parent who doesn't? Okay.

[–]Elvick 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

The case I find compelling is that parents should be awarded custody according to how much work each one puts into the child already rather than to assume 50/50. I have zero investment in which parent that is.

Ignoring the projection. It's just a huge coincidence that the parent more often to do that is a woman.

So either the kid winds up with the poorer parent who has time for them or the richer parent who doesn't? Okay.

Hey, I'm not the one against shared custody, you are. If you don't want it, then the only way I personally would be fine without it is to do away with child support. Hence me calling it nonsense otherwise.

Nobody should have to pay for a child they have zero control over and who the other parent can bad mouth you to, and prevent access to. And then uses your child's unwillingness to see as justification for not letting you, when the reason they don't want to see you is because the other parent is bad mouthing you constantly to the child. And who doesn't even have to prove the money is going toward the kid's needs and can instead buy purses, shoes, cell phones, drugs, whatever.

Courts aren't going to invest in every single case to really dig in to find the 'perfect balance' based on 'investment' they put into a child. They want a default position to dump every case on unless there are circumstances which demand more investment on their parent.

So your "idea" is a fantasy.

[–]msleeduon 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Ya know, for someone who went on at some length about my vast intellectual inferiority you really aren't seeming to get the point. We shouldn't assume custody should be 50/50. It might be. Or it might be 30/70. or 80/20. It should be based on which (if either) parent does most of the work. Note how that is distinctly not being against shared custody.

Divorce doesn't stop the fact that you co-created a kid together. If one person is putting in more of the labor, it makes sense the other should have to put in more of the money. That's just division of labor.

Courts aren't going to invest in every single case to really dig in to find the 'perfect balance' based on 'investment' they put into a child.

Good news: about 5% of divorce cases are settled in court. Usually division of custody is arrived at amicably.

So your "idea" is a fantasy.

No. Your assumptions are wrong.

It's just a huge coincidence that the parent more often to do that is a woman.

And yet when the disproportionate burden of child-rearing slows down women's careers relative to men's, I'm going to go out on a wild theoretical limb and guess this doesn't bug you as much. Yes. It sucks that women get more of the child-rearing. In an ideal world there would be a 50/50 split in how much work each person puts in with the kid. There are, in fact, proposed ideas for how to get us closer to that. Then most of this would resolve itself.

[–]SchalaZeal01 -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal012 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Citation needed.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1522%26context%3Dlawreview&ved=2ahUKEwiYwLKGxv3aAhUL24MKHTpOBSQQFjAGegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw2q9e4k-9bNoijf615WDZ1_

And this kinda addresses it. https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3325686

Everyone recognizes it's an uphill battle for men.

Women are assumed fit parents. Men have to prove it.

Yes! You can take the racial component out of it and even still, that is a clear example of bias against men in the courts!

By your logic they're just choosing to go to jail and if they fought they'd do just as well.

I don't know why people focus on custody, which makes the point poorly if at all, and not on criminal conviction disparity which makes it in giant flaming letters.

We do also discuss this.

Feminists dismiss it as "well actually misogyny".

[–]msleeduon1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I appreciate the link to a timely scholarly article, although without knowing which part to focus on it's TL;DR. I had seen the HuffPo article and find it frustrating that he doesn't cite his evidence or really back up his claims, particularly as he himself appears to be a divorce lawyer who focuses on dads. It comes across as an advertisement.

By your logic they're just choosing to go to jail and if they fought they'd do just as well.

That's unfair, particularly in the context of me making an acknowledgement that I think this part of your argument has a lot of validity.

I take seriously the hypothesis that gender stereotyping biases custody settlements towards favoring the mother. In fact, when I first heard that argument it made enough intuitive sense to me that I took it at face value. Then someone called me out on it by pointing to the data and saying, "custody actually pretty much goes to the parents who request it." This was an idea I had to give up.

Does society have a bias that says that men aren't as good at parenting as mothers, aren't as capable of nurturing, and are more detached as parents? I would say absolutely. I'd argue it even further: that most of the discrepancy in child-rearing and requests for custody comes from that bias becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. To the extent that this is the point people are trying to prove by bringing up how women usually get custody, I agree. They just aren't using a very compelling argument to get there.

[–]Nuke42 39 points40 points41 points 8 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[+]msleeduon -18 points-17 points-16 points 8 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[+]lichlordgodfrey -14 points-13 points-12 points 8 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]arsch_loch 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]PM_ME_UR_SECERTS -7 points-6 points-5 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nuke42 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[+]PM_ME_UR_SECERTS -6 points-5 points-4 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nuke422 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_SECERTS1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nuke422 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_SECERTS3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nuke422 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_SECERTS3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nuke424 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You know, I've been thinking about this a lot of the morning. The rise of movements like men's rights and incel is scary, it's scary to me because both movements aren't based on hate, what they're based on pain.

A lot of the supportive users on here, myself included have probably gone through a hell of a lot of shit. But the people we're most likely to hurt are ourselves. Suicide is a major issue within men's rights and there's a reason for that. In a way it's us seeking help for an issue that often plagues men.

I didn't hate women and even at my lowest. Any animosity was felt towards women as a whole and their general actions as opposed to any individual female. I love women, I wouldn't be alive on two counts if it wasn't for them. But that doesn't change the fact that men need help too. Feminism, as a whole, is not helping men which is why we need places like this - to help the broken and damaged men of the world.

[–]PM_ME_UR_SECERTS1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nuke422 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_SECERTS1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lichlordgodfrey 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Florianopolix 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mythandros 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_SECERTS 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]superprez 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_SECERTS 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]superprez 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]superprez 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_SECERTS0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Women don't feel safe alone on a night out.

We can't legislate feelings. I don't feel safe at night alone in many parts of down. You know what I do about it? Fucking press on.

Women still suffer a pay gap.

Of like 3-7%, and there is no indication that this is down to sexism. Please stop parroting this lie, it does not add to your credibility.

Why are they less valuable. Society deems there jobs as nessicary as a construction worker. School teachers and nurses both dont make as much as they should either.

You're asking the wrong question. "Why are women's jobs less valuable" is backwards. Why do women pick undervalued jobs? That is the question. Nobody is making them be teachers or nurses, especially nowadays. You can't blame that on discrimination. Let women walk away from those undervalued professions, and when the shortage hits, we'll see how valuable they really are. No one is out there saying "there are a lot of women in X industry... WE SHOULD LOWER THE WAGES ACROSS THE BOARD BECAUSE WOMEN." That's ridiculous.

[–]superprez1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_SECERTS1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]superprez1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_SECERTS1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]superprez1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_SECERTS1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lichlordgodfrey 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Florianopolix 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Feminists didn’t give women the right to vote

Okay, sure, the men in congress did, but only after tons of pressure and backing of women’s suffrage started by feminists of the time

or the ability to work the same jobs as men (there already were women in many fields of "men's work")

The working force was hugely male until WW1, when the government opened up the gates to women workers supporting the war. After that, however, the cultural norm was definitely stay-at-home mother with a working father for many decades after WW1. Feminists fought for a woman’s ability to work without social backlash.

What women can wear or not is more influenced by women and the time period

Sure, to some extent, but similar to the traditional views of gender roles in the family unit being fought by feminists, they also fought for choice in self-expression, allowing for less criticism of what they could wear.

and feminists do little for men's mental well-being

The problem with this statement is a misunderstanding of what a feminist is. Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social equality of sexes and a feminist is one who supports said equality of sexes. With that in mind, it would not be a poor assumption to say a large majority of anyone working with the treatment of mental health of men are feminists.

[–]lichlordgodfrey 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I guess I have to use quotes.

Okay, sure, the men in congress did, but only after tons of pressure and backing of women’s suffrage started by feminists of the time

The suffragists in the USA were not feminists.

The suffragettes in the UK were terrorists who likely delayed their right to vote due to their actions (and not very long ago previously, common men had to fight for their right to vote - doing marches and demonstrations, and getting the crap beaten out of them for it). Suffragettes did not have that problem, and the only one who died was the one who tried to pin a suffragette advert on a horse going at full gallop in a race.

In Canada, women were only given the right to vote so that they could get a draft voted for, as the initial fervor for WW1 had died out due to the war grinding to a halt. Men would not vote for themselves to be forced into that meatgrinder, so they gave women the right to vote... So that they could force men into that meatgrinder.

The working force was hugely male until WW1, when the government opened up the gates to women workers supporting the war. After that, however, the cultural norm was definitely stay-at-home mother with a working father for many decades after WW1. Feminists fought for a woman’s ability to work without social backlash.

Just because it was predominantly male doesn't really mean anything. There were women who worked before WW1 and WW2, women who truly desired to do these jobs. They worked their Gods damned asses off. Social backlash is not something you can get rid of by government fiat. It's something that takes time to change. Forcing it to change faster brings about unintended consequences. One consequence, wages were depressed because of the bigger pool of available labor for companies, as now more and more women were being told they should get a job (rather than perhaps them choosing on their own to do so), and this was helped along by corporate propagandizing. There was no trickle, no time for adjustment.

Sure, to some extent, but similar to the traditional views of gender roles in the family unit being fought by feminists, they also fought for choice in self-expression, allowing for less criticism of what they could wear.

Most of that criticism comes from other women, not men. And it's not like men do not get criticism for whatever they choose to wear. From women, no less. Why should "traditional views of gender roles" be fought by anyone? What harm was there in them? I believe there's no harm in a woman choosing a different path, but why would you fight this path?

Do you not believe in choice?

The problem with this statement is a misunderstanding of what a feminist is. Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social equality of sexes and a feminist is one who supports said equality of sexes. With that in mind, it would not be a poor assumption to say a large majority of anyone working with the treatment of mental health of men are feminists.

There is only one major feminist ideology that has any teeth, any influence, any power. And it is the cause of the Duluth model of domestic violence, ignoring the fact that domestic violence is typically reciprocal, or that there are women who abuse their significant others while said significant other does not.

It genders laws so that men can not be victims of rape from women, and heavily influences custody law so that women are the ones who mainly get custodial rights to kids.

Finally... Feminist mental health is nothing but a nightmare.

What rights do men have that women do not? Bearing in mind that there is an inherent physiological difference between the sexes, so true equality is never actually obtainable (but I would not be against elective abortion being legal in every single province, state, country... but I do not see feminists making a huge campaign about that, despite their influence).

[–]awhaling 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]azazelcrowley -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]awhaling 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dank_Meems 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreenToenail 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreenToenail 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago* (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon -4 points-3 points-2 points 8 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreenToenail 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]msleeduon 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreenToenail 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheGreenToenail5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheGreenToenail5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheGreenToenail6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mully_and_sculder6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mully_and_sculder4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Thrown1tawayzzz3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Thrown1tawayzzz2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Thrown1tawayzzz3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Thrown1tawayzzz1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angryguyathome2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angryguyathome1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheGreenToenail4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That article (while not only from a biased site) uses the same half full argument. They didn't state the exact job or peramteries. It only summarises that "Men earn more women after nine years in buessniss jobs" Which company, why did the women work less hours (which shocker is a big part of why men make more)? Women could have gone to company A and Men could have gone to company B, both being buessniss, but both requiring different needs.

The supposed wage gap is just the total figure for men and women in an average year, it does not account for different jobs (even in the same field) or number of women in a certain field vs men. If a company is 75% male and 25% female, then the male salary is going to be higher by the end of the year, since they're the majority of them more than likely have prior experience with the company and therefore a raise, whereas a small number of women would typically mean less women have less experience with the company and therefore a lower salary at the end of the year.

[–]msleeduon0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

They didn't state the exact job or peramteries.

Actually, they make quite a big point of distinguishing by profession.

Which company, why did the women work less hours (which shocker is a big part of why men make more)?

Okay, they didn't get as granular as specific companies, but I'm not sure what that would have helped. They also go into detail on why women worked less hours.

The supposed wage gap is just the total figure for men and women in an average year, it does not account for different jobs (even in the same field) or number of women in a certain field vs men.

Except that's exactly what this article did.

If a company is 75% male and 25% female, then the male salary is going to be higher by the end of the year, since they're the majority of them more than likely have prior experience with the company and therefore a raise, whereas a small number of women would typically mean less women have less experience with the company and therefore a lower salary at the end of the year.

That doesn't follow; there are plenty of circumstances in which the minority group has a higher average salary by virtue of being more in management positions.

More to the point, the questions you are asking are almost all addressed directly by the article. They just don't go as granular as company by company.

[–]TheGreenToenail3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Except the article didn't go into detail and just gave a vauge example of a job profession, which is the only way the wage gap holds any merrit.

If women are paid less then why don't people hire only women? It'd save them money.

The article only accounts for totals, which as I've said many time, don't hold value in specific detail. Companies pay different for different reasons, if they did go into detail I'm sure you'll find that women are paid equally.

Vox has been polled on numerous different outlets as being heavily left winged biased, and the left is notorious for associating with third wave feminism. The article also relied heavily on personal accounts from the women via surveys, which can't give exact results. The entire article is extremely biased that negelects detail and only sums up yearly averages, which again don't indicate women are paid less for the same job. They simply work different fields to varying degrees, some of the more higher paying jobs have more men, which is why at the end of the year men make more.

Most (This isn't coming from an official statistic, more or less common sense) women don't want to get their hands dirty. Men get paid a lot for working in foundries, dangerous jobs and hard work. Not saying women aren't capable of It, but go to any "non dyke" and they'll deny wanting to work it because of the nature of the job.

[–]msleeduon0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angryguyathome5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]whatabout_taz 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Well, I have researched feminism, from its origins in the West through today. I have. I've read the literature, I've reviewed as much of the academic research as I can get my hands on without being in a University, I've read popular articles written by feminists, I've lurked social media spaces most men here would run from...

What I've found about 3rd wave feminism is a constant insistence that patriarchy is a system men and women suffer from in the modern world. That toxic masculinity is not condemning men or masculinity, but rather a set of socially enforced behaviors that negatively impact men, women, boys and girls. That the wage disparity by gender is complicated but should be addressed by everyone for everyone's benefit. That even though there are more men in positions of power than women it is acknowledged that women make up a slight majority of voters so the issue is with the patriarchal systems and cultural pressures that have always been there. That men can be victims of sexual assault, rape, domestic violence and many other issues that women suffer and have to endure. This list goes on, but I hope I've demonstrated that I'm not ignorant of the narrative.

Now... What I see in practice are VAWA, the Duluth Model that produced it, primary aggressor aggressor arrest policies, effectively NO fair adjudication in family court for men, toothless, token mentions of bodily autonomy for infant males, the absolute joke that public education and academia have become for men and boys, active pushback from feminists when we try to advocate for and support shelter and services for abused men and boys, Two, count them, TWO effective means of reproductive control for male bodies, male feminists who demand that men acknowledge their privilege and support feminism because in all cases 'women have it worse'... Again, I could go on.

Here's where MRA's generally hear something like 'well, if you want to change it, DO something about it!' I think the other guys here can fill you in on what happens then.

You say in another reply that you'd like to have a conversation about Duluth Model... All I can say about it is that having been a victim of that little pogrom is that there is no conversation to be had. You either oppose it outright and have been demanding it's removal from public policy or you are a sexist bigot that should not be listened to. It is inexcusable. Period.

You say feminists support men and boys who have been victims of rape, domestic violence and childhood sexual abuse. My trauma therapist would have a word with you about that... She has to cross paths with the feminist power structure in her field all the time when she tries to get support and resources for me and other men and boys she helps. She honored me when she and I started working together by telling me what it was like when she came out to her parents as a lesbian. She's certainly no stranger to the struggle for acceptance of her humanity. Now she's no longer a stranger to my struggle. You don't have to be either. So, if you wanna talk, let's talk. But be careful when coming here about assuming what the men here do and don't know. Some of us know a lot more than you think we do...

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

To be fair, I stated that I did not think the other interlocutor had an adequate understanding based on what he had said. You very clearly understand the arguments of feminism on their own terms.

And you're right. It's frustrating when the amount of complaining about what feminists do and think dwarfs the amount of talk about actual solutions. If someone sincerely cares about an issue like, say, child custody disparities, I expect them to 1) at least have gotten as far as recognizing that that's primarily a function of who requests custody and 2) have an idea of how they think that problem should be solved. Frankly, most people don't get that far. So when someone spends all their time complaining about how feminism doesn't solve a problem but they're not actually focused on solutions to the problem...kinda seems like the problem itself isn't what they care about.

The thing about the Duluth model is I don't really disagree with the criticisms. I just want people to be focusing on better answers. And I am deeply, deeply sympathetic to the experience of male victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, in no small part because the initial trauma is compounded by issues related to what it means to be masculine. Guys who have been through that face an extra layer of victim-blaming.

You gave a laundry list of issues we might discuss. We're unlikely to disagree much on circumcision. The lack of effective male birth control sucks, although that seems to be more of a scientific barrier than a function of sexism (either way). I dunno. Dealer's choice.

[–]whatabout_taz 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Fair enough. Let's talk solutions. Regarding child custody, it's pretty well known around here that lawyers representing mothers aren't above suggesting to their clients that accusations of domestic violence or even abuse (sexual and otherwise) of the children are an easy way to shut down a custody fight. Attorneys representing men regularly discourage even trying... A powerful activist group, say, feminists, could easily investigate and expose that sort of thing. Men's groups not so much. Remember, patriarchy hurts men too. No institutional support for fathers. They don't care because they don't have to.

As for Duluth, again, it has forever marred feminism across the board. It's an albatross around your neck unless and until it is denounced loudly, aggressively and constantly by any and all feminists that aren't responsible for it, and an abject and unconditional apology and restitution from those that did. No negotiation, no exceptions. Same thing with Title IX.

You, ALL of you, have to learn to take responsibility for yourselves and what you've done as a group. If you personally had nothing to do with it, congrats. You are one of the lucky ones that just have to start screaming angrily at those responsible. Until they do what you tell them to do. If that doesn't work, get physical. It doesn't bother too many of you to push, slap and shove MRA's around when we speak out in public. Turn some of that righteous anger and violence in the direction it belongs. Again, men can't do this. Many of us would like to, but we can't. We're men. When we scream, shout, push and shove we get thrown in jail. You don't.

As a victim of rape, brutal violence and childhood sexual abuse at the hands of both men and women, I have that support I need because I work, I have good health insurance and make money so I pay for that support. I have to. As a man, no one, that is, NO ONE is going to just care about me because I'm a person who's been brutalized and tortured. I accept that, because that's the way things are. But in terms of solutions for all men... The last place I'm going looking for help are the people who got ahold of me after all that and threw me in the garbage.

Feminists could resolve the 'Men's Rights' question as well as all the other men's communities everyone is panicking over these days.

All you all have to do is stop focusing on 50% of the problem and start making serious, hard-nosed uncompromising DEMANDS that these issues men face be addressed by all the institutional powers feminism is so eager to influence and your complaints about us would be solved in about six months. You'd never hear from us again most likely. That's how men are. We're pretty good at letting go of resentments when we're shown some good faith and good judgement.

Honestly, what do you have to lose? Just organize a moratorium of six months on any current feminist issue, get really loud and aggressive about men's and boy's issues, and openly denounce any pushback or objection. From anyone. Externally or internally.

Then you'd have allies. Real allies. What you have now are white knights and 'nice guys'. We really don't like them. You shouldn't either. Not unless they're already at least as concerned with men's issues as women's.

[–]msleeduon1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Regarding child custody, it's pretty well known around here that lawyers representing mothers aren't above suggesting to their clients that accusations of domestic violence or even abuse (sexual and otherwise) of the children are an easy way to shut down a custody fight.

A quick google search brought up two articles (citing some of the same research but not entirely) stating that domestic violence charges were substantiated in about 2/3 of cases and false accusations only substantiated in about 6% of cases (1, 2). A third (3) cited that as many as 70% of these complaints are unnecessary or false during custody hearings, but...well, he doesn't cite his sources. And he's a divorce attorney who focuses on male clients.

I think I have to say "more evidence needed" on this one.

A powerful activist group, say, feminists, could easily investigate and expose that sort of thing. Men's groups not so much.

Why not? Actually I think it probably wouldn't be that hard to find a grant to conduct a study looking into this issue.

It's an albatross around your neck unless and until it is denounced loudly, aggressively and constantly by any and all feminists that aren't responsible for it, and an abject and unconditional apology and restitution from those that did.

Since this is a thing that has affected you so personally, it feels a little weird trying to have a civil debate about it. I'm actually still not 100% sure what your precise ax to grind with it is, and maybe that's for the best? I don't want you to out yourself more than is comfortable. But you'll no argument from me that we shouldn't categorically assume men are the perpetrator and women are the victim.

If that doesn't work, get physical.

This is getting weird.

It doesn't bother too many of you to push, slap and shove MRA's around when we speak out in public.

Citation needed. Truthfully, I don't really see MRAs organizing offline much at all. I wouldn't know where to find one to get abusive with. Not saying it doesn't happen, just not visibly to me.

Again, men can't do this. Many of us would like to, but we can't. We're men. When we scream, shout, push and shove we get thrown in jail. You don't.

I'm a guy.

As a man, no one, that is, NO ONE is going to just care about me because I'm a person who's been brutalized and tortured. I accept that, because that's the way things are.

I don't know what to tell you, man. I had plenty of support when I needed it (although I stubbornly refused more of it than I should have). I just didn't have that experience after my assault. I'm sorry you did.

Honestly, what do you have to lose? Just organize a moratorium of six months on any current feminist issue, get really loud and aggressive about men's and boy's issues, and openly denounce any pushback or objection.

I'm going to tackle this from the gay angle. If a cultural conservative told me that straight people would take gay people more seriously if we just stopped advocating for everything we cared about for six months and instead advocated for only things straight people cared about, I'd laugh in their face. One, that's not true, two, who the hell dictates what those issues would even be, three, not all gay people are a monolith who agree on the same things and four, people kind of get to care about what they care about. There are lots of mens issues I do sincerely care about (and advocate for). I'm for better working conditions for men in general and paid paternity leave. I loathe the practice of childhood circumcision. Others I have less of a fight in.

But I'd never ask BLM to stop doing what they're doing and spend six months doing exclusively LGBT advocacy either.

I think it comes back to one of your initial points: you don't feel like you have the organizational power to push some of these issues. But no movement does when it starts. If your passion is reforming the way domestic abuse survivors and perpetrators are handled by the system, awesome. You'd find plenty of feminist allies who would be willing to help. But if it's your passion you really do have to do the work of organizing it, or joining an organization that focuses on it.

1)https://ccadv.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/CCADV-CCASA-Fact-Sheet-on-Myth-of-False-Allegations_updated-2.21.14.pdf

2) https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/cdv_enewsletter/custodymythsandcounter.authcheckdam.pdf

3) https://cordellcordell.com/2015/joe-cordells-huffington-post-column-on-domestic-violence/

[–]whatabout_taz1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Can't give a full reply now, just got up and gotta get ready for work. I have a lot to say here, and thanks for your thoughtful, respectful reply! For now, my 'call to arms' was a bit of a troll... Just wanted to put you in my shoes for a minute. Didn't know you were a guy, but even so you seem pretty inexperienced in being called upon to risk your safety and well-being for people who either don't understand you, don't care about you, or actively disrespect you. It happens to men like me all the time.

I'll give you a full reply tonight after I get home from work, go to therapy and then spend a few hours supporting other vulnerable, suffering men in my community. That, by the way, is my day-to-day life. I care. A lot. And I give up MOST of my free time helping men. Face to face. 5 nights a week. See you tonight!

[–]whatabout_taz1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Since this is a thing that has affected you so personally, it feels a little weird trying to have a civil debate about it. I'm actually still not 100% sure what your precise ax to grind with it is, and maybe that's for the best? I don't want you to out yourself more than is comfortable.

I'm grateful, but compared to many cases I've seen other men put through mine was fairly painless overall. I was arrested for DV and preventing my wife from calling 911 (I grabbed her arm). After the arrest she tried to avoid testifying against me, let me back into our home and tried her best to put the toothpaste back in the tube so to speak. We were married for 25 years and had never as much as raised voices to each other until near the end... Those details don't matter but the short version is she still filed for divorce, agreed to a mediator instead of lawyers, didn't want to see me get hurt, etc. Didn't matter. Once this exciting new DV program got it's hooks in there was no stopping it. I got diverted to their DV classes for 26 weeks... I passed with flying colors, accolades from the facilitators and even an invite to come back and speak at other classes. You wanna know why? Because I didn't belong there. I was no threat to anyone.

But I recovered. It took 3 years of suicidal ideations, alcoholism that would likely have killed most adults, and hitting bottom being thrown out of my apartment, losing my job and in serious debt. But like I said, I got off light.

Honestly, what do you have to lose? Just organize a moratorium of six months on any current feminist issue, get really loud and aggressive about men's and boy's issues, and openly denounce any pushback or objection.

I'm going to tackle this from the gay angle. If a cultural conservative told me that straight people would take gay people more seriously if we just stopped advocating for everything we cared about for six months and instead advocated for only things straight people cared about, I'd laugh in their face.

Like I said, that was sort of a troll. I certainly DON'T expect feminists to take to the streets for men's issues. I understand.

As for being passionate, no... I'm just a broken old white guy, we don't get to fight the good fight. We're mostly busy trying to survive and do what we can one person at a time. Like I said, 5 nights a week. I listen to their pain, I sit quietly and hear them out. You might be surprised at how little bitterness I hear. I hear lots of remorse, shame, confusion and sometimes hope. I say what I can, I try to live as an example that there's a way out. I don't tell them about things I say here unless they ask. I tell them the deck is pretty well stacked against them, but if they let go of the past and just accept that life will never be fair for men and boys they can still live with themselves. Even if everyone else throws them away. Telling a man not to keep his feelings bottled up is a good idea. It's a shame he can't do that with his loved ones without them recoiling in disgust. That's what they do though.

EDIT TO ADD: The first two links in your reply give me a feeling like reading the fox's report detailing his efforts to guard the henhouse... Honestly, I don't put a lot of stock in studies like these from ANY side of these issues. I used to just believe them without examination. I'll never do that again:

[–]awhaling 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]msleeduon 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Second-wave feminism came more directly out of the civil rights activism of the 60s and focused on some of the more egregious gender disparities between men and women. As such it tended to be combative and zero-sum. A lot of writers (most of the ones people quote on the lists of "evil things feminists said") talk about men being the enemy of women and women needing to fight back against men to reclaim their power and move the balance closer to 50/50.

Third wave is more loosely defined, but tends to see gender more as a social construct and the balance of power between genders less as a zero sum game and more as an asymmetric but largely cooperative attempt at men and women sharing an equal balance of power.

In other words, second-wave viewed gender as a game of tug-of-war. Third wave views it as a lens through which we filter the world.

[–]hork23 -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]awhaling 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JestyerAverageJoe 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thetompain 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WordsNotToLiveBy 36 points37 points38 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]_fck17 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tmone 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]WordsNotToLiveBy -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GoDucks2002 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]WordsNotToLiveBy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Elvick 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]WordsNotToLiveBy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Elvick 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]WordsNotToLiveBy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The way you say it, makes me visualize someone doing it on a city street while some single mother is buying clothes for their child and being harassed by some disgusting man with dirty clothes and missing teeth.

But things are very different in context. What we're talking about here is during a sports game. It's become somewhat tradition for fans from the stands to run out on the field. No matter the country. Some places they are predominantly streakers, some they run out and hug the star athlete, some they do drunken annoyance like kick the ball out of play and run around mockingly.

My argument is that America is becoming more and more sensitive in all aspects of life, there should be some push back before it's too late. In the UK and Europe, no one pays it as much mind. Even the custodians/security don't treat them like huge threats. And they are much more in your face and louder than in the States. There's a more calm and mature view towards such things, b/c they understand hysteria is only going to have negative residual effects. That's how the States' cable news has become "everything is Breaking News" and danger is around every corner.

You might think this is absurd, but it's about how we approach any given act. I would no be so forgiving if someone grabbed a stranger on their butts on a city street, but silly on the pitch pranks are common place at sports events. The obvious thing to keep in mind is, were the athletes or others in danger or harassed? Maybe ask them. If not, let's move on and not make a mountain out of a mole hill.

[–]Elvick 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]WordsNotToLiveBy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And it's far more common "tradition" for women to abuse men openly and freely with no consequence. What's your point?

Two different things. You're assuming I'm saying abusing either gender is good b/c it's tradition. I am not. Firstly, I don't think this is abuse. And I already said that if anyone in this scenario feels abused, then that changes everything.

This isn't about "all aspects of life".

I believe it is. I'm of the mind that if we make a big stink about this, then it will create a society that will become more distant and cold with one another. For the same reason the MeToo movement is going to have it's own unintended consequences, so will making Tomfoolery a serious crime. There is also a difference between playful light pinch versus groping, and the intentions behind them. And depending on the intent and severity one is a slap on the wrist, the other is charged with assault.

[–]BlackHole94 -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Either way, she's not really endangering anyone's life.

Someone may already be facing suicidal thoughts, and this inappropriate behavior is the trigger. So actually, it literally could endanger someone’s life.

Imagine someone says, “cat calling women is not really endangering her life”. What you are saying is exactly a double standard; you still don’t get it.

You have no idea how sensitive someone’s mental health can be.

Nor she making anyone feel scared or uncomfortable.

Implausible. No way for you to have access to people’s mental thoughts. That would make me ridiculously uncomfortable especially on a live event. And I would never be able to speak up about it as it would be too embarrassing for me to discuss. I’d just act neutral about it, when in reality I’ve been placed in an uncomfortable situation.

IF SHE IS, then the player(s) who felt that way can press charges.

Wrong again. Based on the current culture, Men are less likely to report sexual assault:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4062022/

It’s literally frowned upon for them to do so. Even here, you get these toxic comments “she can sexually assault me any-day”. Heck, I would be too embarrassed to report this if happened to me.

[–]WordsNotToLiveBy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

People's sensitivity and mental health is so fragile because we make it so. Making a mountain out of a mole hill is how we got to such a sensitive society. And if you're concerned about people's mental health, then these posts aren't where you'll apply solutions. You'll have to write you representatives, vote in local elections, let them know any way possible that we need more facilities to treat such individuals.

Implausible. No way for you to have access to people’s mental thoughts.

It's fairly simple. If someone there feels threatened, they can press charges or let the baseball association know that they were violated.

It’s literally frowned upon for them to do so.

Not any more. Like most things, that's changing as well. No one is going to look down on that guy if he was inappropriately touched and wanted to speak out. Case in point -- Terry Crews.

[–]scyth3s 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SimplicityIsKing 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]splash_water 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BlackHole94 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ShadowMario01 44 points45 points46 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]BIGFATHIPPO5[S] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Houdiniman111 20 points21 points22 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]awhaling 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sanfranlive 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Fuckoff555 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]loganblade14 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pipezilla 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dank_Meems 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]g_squidman 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]robjob1990 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chadwickofwv 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Razorbladekandyfan 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mamaluigi1933 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fuckoff555 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mamaluigi1933 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JustinAshburn 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Danieljsmith84 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]crocsim 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Daddie02 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dogefourp 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Travis2310 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]proteios1 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rand0mmm 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FuriousStylesMGTOW 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Notemy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Thermofluid -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chownowbowwow -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lnhzm -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]KingoftheCastle94 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]lnhzm -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]KingoftheCastle94 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]lister777 -11 points-10 points-9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]OliverBludsport -19 points-18 points-17 points 8 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]EdgyFilipino42069 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]OliverBludsport -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]EdgyFilipino42069 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]OliverBludsport -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]EdgyFilipino42069 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]OliverBludsport 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EdgyFilipino42069 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KnockingNeo -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]lameexcuse69 -25 points-24 points-23 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]junautoworks 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dickpill 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]davst71 -12 points-11 points-10 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]gc3 -14 points-13 points-12 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]human8ure -15 points-14 points-13 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]human8ure -5 points-4 points-3 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]human8ure -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]human8ure 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]human8ure 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]RWDMARS -9 points-8 points-7 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TakuanNoho 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]willofgood1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

You people so out of touch with reality. Woman would not feel comfortable nor would the welcome the groping. Men would not mind. There’s where the difference comes into play. So the punishment fits the crime from the perspective of the person offended. That’s equality. Not whatever the fuck you bunch of sissy’s think it is. Men have the right to get their butts grabbed. Woman have the right not to. It’s about what people want. Not what looks good on paper. If you ever had a girl touch you then you would understand. I’m guessing nobody subscribed to anything labeled “men’s rights” has slept with a woman. Hence your population will die out with the extreme feminist people due to lack of reproduction and disconnection from natural society.

[–]tmone 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]willofgood1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Lol. That’s sexist!? To clarify, which no one should, because who cares.. I don’t mean men who have a specific reason not to want an attractive female touching them (ie gay, raped by women, etc). Otherwise stop bein a big baby.

[–]tmone 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrResistanc 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]MrMFPuddles -16 points-15 points-14 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrMFPuddles -4 points-3 points-2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

Whatever, y’all are just pissed cuz you can’t be dicks to women.

and this is what a comment looks like when it has nothing to contribute but insults and ad homs. i too, resort to fallacies when i fail to articulate a well thought out rebuttal. /

get educated, ya ignorant cunt. Unlike women, men face actual systemic sexism. You cannot name me one single fucking right men have that women do not.

laughing at and dismissing the following data makes you fuckn sociopath.

men serve 65 percent longer sentences than women for same crime.

men are convicted 100 percent more than women.

Men are 97% of combat fatalities.

Men pay 97% of Alimony

Men make 94% of work suicides.

Men make up 93% of work fatalities.

Men make up 81% of all war deaths.

Men lose custody in 84% of divorces.

80% of all suicides are men.

77% of homicide victims are men.

89% of men will be the victim of at least one violent crime.

Men are over twice as victimised by strangers as women.

Men are 165% more likely to be convicted than women.

Men get 63% longer sentences than women for the same crime.

Court bias against men is at least 6 times bigger than racial bias.

Males are discriminated against in school and University.

Boys face vastly more corporal punishment than girls.

60-80% of the homeless are men.

Women's Cancers receive 15 times more funding than men's

At least 10% of fathers are victims of paternity fraud.

[–]MrMFPuddles -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrMFPuddles -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Seriously. Double standards are ridiculous
Author	BIGFATHIPPO5
Upvotes	5017
Comments	427
Date	May 8, 2018 8:59 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/8i09bc/seriously_double_standards_are_ridiculous/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/seriously-double-standards-are-ridiculous.901577 https://theredarchive.com/post/901577

Comments