You do realize that the poster you are addressing just personally attacked two members of this forum by name?
That wasn't a personal attack. He asked me which members of the forum argued against me when I mentioned the vast majority of homicides are male. You were one of them.
That is not the same as saying we should not teach men not to kill. I await your retraction.
Why not both? If you're going to stop having wars, the draft will not be needed.
Read my post again. That's not what I said.
Of course you're going to say that, because it denies your rant that men support women financially but women don't support men. I simply refuted your point.
We're done. You've been misrepresenting my posts to mean whatever you want them to mean, instead of what I actually said, and you've been doing it in an insulting way.
I just don't understand your point. I'm still subject to the draft. I can't just "not start wars" because I'm a man and other men are starting the wars.
That's my interpretation of it. What were you saying then?
I never said that women don't support men. The thing you quoted was in response to Tim seeming to place the blame on men for family court bias. I simply provided the mirror perspective to show that it goes both ways.
On the contrary, I've represented what you actually said - and which is pretty representative of a big part of what I find irritating in this thread, i.e. switching conveniently between personal responsibility and collective gender-based one as is convenient to support a point.
Evidently you don't. Conscription may be a Bad Thing, but it's also a known result of a declaration of war. The draft is a collective consequence of a collective decision, whether or not any given individual supports that war or is happy being drafted, and it can be avoided by a collective decision to avoid war. Mass-rape is not a known result of war, or at least we mostly try to believe that it's not, and it is in fact a war-crime, punishable among civilised nations by a short step and a long drop.
"It doesn't matter how often I repeat myself, people just can't understand how right I am."
What's really striking is that they're quite profoundly anti-male as well. For them, the vast majority of the male gender is divided into brutish Neander-jocks or emasculated liberal ****s. They don't seem to have much respect, let alone affection, for anybody.
Where can I sign up to make these collective decisions about war?
I think if you looked at the movement with an open mind, you would find that this isn't true.
This seems to be an excellent response to the opening post of this thread.
In the UK, you can register to vote by post or online. I don't know how it works in the US, and I suspect it might be a state-by-state thing, but I believe that there are a number of non-profits that'll walk you through things.
Well, maybe. But only to the extent that they imagine a middle-ground of disenfranchised, culturally-castrated men like themselves, and may extent this category to cover a plurality of even majority of men. But pity is not respect, and self-pity is not self-respect.
I don't know how it works in the UK, but here in the US the government doesn't hold a vote before engaging in military action.
Do you not think the issues they raise are valid or important? I listed some of them a few pages back for reference. And what do you mean by "dim view"?
We elect representatives, the theory goes, so that the government doesn't have to hold a referendum on every policy decision. There are certainly criticisms to be made of that theory, it'll come as no surprise that I'm pretty sceptical myself, but that goes some way outside the terms of this thread.
I think the issues are important, but I don't think that the Men's Rights Movement actually raises them as anything more than a cudgel to attack feminism. I do not believe that these people are sincere advocates for men, let alone effective ones, rather, they're anti-feminists with enough of an attachment to liberal values to feel they need to make their case in the terms of a reverse-feminist egalitarianism, rather than in more traditional terms of religious or pseudo-historical fantastical frameworks of gender relations. (That is, respectively, God gave Eve to Adam and Nature gave Raquel Welch to Ug the Hunter.) There are serious advocates for these issues, but they do not as a rule feel the need to position their rhetoric in terms of how men have been hard done by women, or even simply in comparison to women.
