[RD] Feminism

[warpus]

Misdirected effort. It's sort of like trickle down economics. In the push for greater opportunity for all starting with those who already enjoy the best opportunity and expecting that they will then be useful in spreading it around is at best inefficient, and by this point proven ineffective.

That's a bit of a misdirection in itself and doesn't really answer my question.

If someone really wants to put an effort into advocating for the issues a specific group of people face, without actually being sexist or hateful in any way.. what's the problem with that? Nothing negative is happening, only something positive. People are being helped. Nobody is being hurt. Why should we be against it?

This is not a question of someone trying to improve the position of those who enjoy the best opportunity. This is a question of someone trying to advocate for certain issues that are not seeing the spotlight in society for various reasons, such as for example emotional (and other) support for men who are suicidal. Are you saying we shouldn't be looking to improve the lives of those men and attempting to improve their options in trying to get help, and attempting to prevent suicides, just because some men have it good?

See, that's incredibly backwards to me. You're basically saying "We shouldn't be trying to improve the lives of those men who are facing male-specific issues, because on average men have it better than women".

Let's hope that sort of thinking does not permeate further through or society because there are truly issues out there that mainly affect men, and there's nothing wrong with wanting to advocate for those causes and issues, as long as you're not being hateful while you do that, which is very easy to do.

 

[sophie]

lol:

"Any development we'd made since the 1780s"

and

The 1960s is the "progenitor of the feminist movement"

This dude is clearly well-versed in such wondrous developments as history and literature.

 

[Hygro]

These are the redpills, folks. Surely it would be a good use of our time to learn more about how they think.

Wait, no, that's sideways. Redpill is about being winning chad. Those are the incels, the anti-redpill. Incels are about not changing, Redpill is about changing.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That's a bit of a misdirection in itself and doesn't really answer my question.

If someone really wants to put an effort into advocating for the issues a specific group of people face, without actually being sexist or hateful in any way.. what's the problem with that? Nothing negative is happening, only something positive. People are being helped. Nobody is being hurt. Why should we be against it?

This is not a question of someone trying to improve the position of those who enjoy the best opportunity. This is a question of someone trying to advocate for certain issues that are not seeing the spotlight in society for various reasons, such as for example emotional (and other) support for men who are suicidal. Are you saying we shouldn't be looking to improve the lives of those men and attempting to improve their options in trying to get help, and attempting to prevent suicides, just because some men have it good?

See, that's incredibly backwards to me. You're basically saying "We shouldn't be trying to improve the lives of those men who are facing male-specific issues, because on average men have it better than women".

Let's hope that sort of thinking does not permeate further through or society because there are truly issues out there that mainly affect men, and there's nothing wrong with wanting to advocate for those causes and issues, as long as you're not being hateful while you do that, which is very easy to do.

I think I did answer your question as best it could be answered. You asked what I think is wrong MRAs, and I didn't give you some specific thing against it because I don't think of it as wrong in itself. Just like I don't think it is wrong in itself when rich people make money under trickle down economic theory. But in the context of "making the best off have it better is good for all" I think it is misdirected and ineffective. Not that it shouldn't be done at all, just that there seems a valid reason for it not being a number one priority.

 

[Lexicus]

Wait, no, that's sideways. Redpill is about being winning chad. Those are the incels, the anti-redpill. Incels are about not changing, Redpill is about changing.

Admittedly I haven't looked very hard at the MRAs, since small doses nauseate me. I'll accept this correction.

 

[Synobun]

Admittedly I haven't looked very hard at the MRAs, since small doses nauseate me. I'll accept this correction.

There's overlap between the two. Depending on the perspective, there's a shared philosophy where both groups seek to dominate women and lesser men. Like a venn diagram, except more scummy.

 

[Gori the Grey]

A fen diagram, then.

 

[JollyRoger]

A bent diaphragm.

 

[civver_764]

There's overlap between the two. Depending on the perspective, there's a shared philosophy where both groups seek to dominate women and lesser men. Like a venn diagram, except more scummy.

That's not what men's rights activism is about. It's about real issues that pertain to men that are quite serious.

These issues include:
-bias in family court
-domestic violence/emotional abuse towards men
-false abuse allegations towards men
-mental health issues and suicide
-lack of emotional support for men
-men being treated as "success objects" or "moneymaking objects"
-men being drafted into the military

Contrary to popular belief, it is not about:
-oppressing women
-taking rights away from women
-complaining about privileges for men being taken away

I really encourage you to watch the documentary, your misconceptions are MRAs are common and it's important for the full story to be shared.

 

[Synobun]

That's not what men's rights activism is about. It's about real issues that pertain to men that are quite serious.

These issues include:
-bias in family court
-domestic violence/emotional abuse towards men
-false abuse allegations towards men
-mental health issues and suicide
-lack of emotional support for men
-men being treated as "success objects" or "moneymaking objects"
-men being drafted into the military

Contrary to popular belief, it is not about:
-oppressing women
-taking rights away from women
-complaining about privileges for men being taken away

I really encourage you to watch the documentary, your misconceptions are MRAs are common and it's important for the full story to be shared.

I'm willing to acknowledge that "radical" MRAs take away from the true intent of the MRA movement if you're willing to acknowledge that "radical" feminism takes away from the true intent of the feminist movement.

To be clear: you can't argue that a movement is universally x if you're unwilling to allow a movement you personally support as being labelled as universally y. Your request that we not mislabel the MRA movement is also extended to your interpretation of the feminist movement.

 

[JollyRoger]

your misconceptions are MRAs are common and it's important for the full story to be shared.

Given your opening post in this thread, it seems pretty hilarious.

 

[civver_764]

I'm willing to acknowledge that "radical" MRAs take away from the true intent of the MRA movement if you're willing to acknowledge that "radical" feminism takes away from the true intent of the feminist movement.

Sure, I accept that. I admit that I was too harsh with my initial comments about feminism. My honest hope is that we can merge the non-radical parts of both movements into one.

Please note, however, that MRAs are commonly demonized by the media, that their events are often shut down by feminist/leftist protestors, and that they are a much smaller movement. Feminism is about as mainstream as you get, has entire university departments dedicated to it, and women's issues are taken much more seriously by our society than men's issues.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Sure, I accept that. I admit that I was too harsh with my initial comments about feminism. My honest hope is that we can merge the non-radical parts of both movements into one.

Please note, however, that MRAs are commonly demonized by the media, that their events are often shut down by feminist/leftist protestors, and that they are a much smaller movement. Feminism is about as mainstream as you get, has entire university departments dedicated to it, and women's issues are taken much more seriously by our society than men's issues.

Which brings us full circle. These men's issues are all fine to take action on, though not the kind of action generally advocated by the (now we are calling them) radical elements. But the reason their issues are not as "mainstream" remains that their issues are low points in what is otherwise a position of advantage while women's issues of comparable import are basically the normal level of the tide for them. That's why, without saying they are not issues, and without saying that it is wrong to attempt to redress them, I still say that focus on them is generally misdirected.

As an example, taking the first issue on your list, bias in family court. Yes, it certainly exists, and it sucks. But it exists in an environment that is far more predominantly shaped by gross inequities in child care responsibilities; ie how many men put their career on hold to care for their offspring vs how many just assume/demand that their spouse will do so? To pick the one aspect of that environment that cuts against men as the thing most in need of redress cannot be justified by any logic other than the self interests of men.

So if your "non-radical" MRAs are open to putting their issues into a scaled context, then fine. But in general even these "non-radicals" seem to be driven almost exclusively by self interest and are only interested in redressing the selected areas that cut against them, in my experience. And the fact that it took almost 300 posts for you to arrive at the grudging acknowledgement that your OP was "too harsh" only adds to that pile of experience. You've certainly offered nothing to counter it.

 

[civver_764]

As an example, taking the first issue on your list, bias in family court. Yes, it certainly exists, and it sucks. But it exists in an environment that is far more predominantly shaped by gross inequities in child care responsibilities; ie how many men put their career on hold to care for their offspring vs how many just assume/demand that their spouse will do so? To pick the one aspect of that environment that cuts against men as the thing most in need of redress cannot be justified by any logic other than the self interests of men.

To flip that around, how many women are willing to be the sole breadwinner and provide for their male partners? Don't you see how men are the bad guys no matter what in your worldview? Just as women can feel pressured to be child rearers, men can feel pressured to be breadwinners. It's not right to place the blame on one of them, gender roles affect everybody.

Also you say men's rights is for the self-interest of men like it's a bad thing, but feminism is also for the self-interest of women which you have no problem with.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Also you say men's rights is for the "self-interest" of men like it's a bad thing, but feminism is also for the "self-interest" of women which you have no problem with.

I'm far more open to people who are getting the short end of almost every stick saying that some sort of equity rebalancing is in order as opposed to someone complaining about the very occasional short stick they are being dealt, yes.

 

[Gori the Grey]

To flip that around, how many women are willing to be the sole breadwinner and provide for their male partners? Don't you see how men are the bad guys no matter what in your worldview? Just as women can feel pressured to be child rearers, men can feel pressured to be breadwinners. It's not right to place the blame on one of them, gender roles affect everybody.

Good. Now take these two pressures that society exerts on the two genders and imagine an otherwise equal unmarried man and an unmarried woman. Which one of those will have an easier time getting a job and succeeding in the workplace if society imagines the proper roles for each gender in the way you say it does, and exerts pressures on the two genders in the way you say it does?

 

[civver_764]

Good. Now take these two pressures that society exerts on the two genders and imagine an otherwise equal unmarried man and an unmarried woman. Which one of those will have an easier time getting a job and succeeding in the workplace if society imagines the proper roles for each gender in the way you say it does, and exerts pressures on the two genders in the way you say it does?

This is a good question. Let's examine the situation of the unmarried man vs. the unmarried woman.

It seems like your implication is that woman are pressured into marriage and raising children. If we accept that, then we should also accept that men are pressured into marriage and providing for their families. If this marriage ends, the woman will be entitled to alimony from the man. If they own a house together, she will probably receive the house. The man will be left to fend for himself.

Let's say that an unmarried man and an unmarried woman hook up, and she becomes pregnant. She has full discretion over whether or not they have the child. Not only that, she is entitled to child support from the father for 18 years. On top of that, if there is a dispute over custody she is more likely the one that gets to be in the child's life, the father just has to pay the bills. The father has no say in any of this, and he will chastised as a "deadbeat dad" if he fights any of this.

If there is a war, the unmarried man may be drafted to die at battle. The unmarried woman will be defended by said military should her life be put in danger.

Due to affirmative action policies, the unmarried woman will have an easier time than the unmarried man when applying for college and jobs. In fact, there are more women than men in higher education.

 

[Gori the Grey]

This is a good question.

So, were you going to answer it? Here it is again:

Given the pressures that you say (not that I imply) society exerts on the two genders, imagine an otherwise equal unmarried man and an unmarried woman. Which one of those will have an easier time getting a job and succeeding in the workplace if society imagines the proper roles for each gender in the way you say it does, and exerts pressures on the two genders in the way you say it does?

 

[civver_764]

So, were you going to answer it? Here it is again:

Given the pressures that you say (not that I imply) society exerts on the two genders, imagine an otherwise equal unmarried man and an unmarried woman. Which one of those will have an easier time getting a job and succeeding in the workplace if society imagines the proper roles for each gender in the way you say it does, and exerts pressures on the two genders in the way you say it does?

The woman, due to affirmative action policies.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The woman, due to affirmative action policies.

LOL...your confidence in the efficacy of government is remarkable.