The Rights of Men

[Flying Pig]

It exists because of the wrong assumption that women are victims and men are perpetrators, it's as simple as that. If you think this is wrong then provide evidence instead of just bringing such "If only you knew...!"-nonsene.


Well yes, proper feminism would. I was of course talking about that nonsense-feminism that useless is affiliated with.

No true Scotsman is a feminist.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well yes, proper feminism would. I was of course talking about that nonsense-feminism that useless is affiliated with.

If you don't address the silliest ideas that come out of people as representative of feminist theory(even Dworkin went back on the dumbest stuff she said(a very old retraction at this point too)) then you have a better leg to stand on when you want people to stop finding misogynists to throw in the face of fathers who are deprived of their children because !no teets! or people who see no compelling need for better investment of social capital in men's shelters, or suicide prevention, or revamping of childhood education.

I mean, I see no fruitful way to address "manspreading" or whatnot beyond a simple, "Well, that's a stupid and combative way to picture reality. Let's move on."

 

[Ryika]

What brand of feminism am i affliated with? Please give me an official name of it, because i didn't realise i subscribed to any specific branch but im sure you will tell me otherwise!

This part of the post was directed towards you:
"It exists because of the wrong assumption that women are victims and men are perpetrators, it's as simple as that. If you think this is wrong then provide evidence instead of just bringing such "If only you knew...!"-nonsene."

How about you answer that first?

 

[useless]

Why would i bother answering when all you've done is insult me and strawman me?

Tell me what sort of feminism i belong to because apparently i am not a "proper feminist" according to you.

 

[Ryika]

Why would i bother answering when all you've done is insult me and strawman me?

Because:
- it would prove that your position is the correct one and that i was wrong.
- it would not make you look like someone who just made a claim that he can't back with evidence.
- it would help women and feminism by providing the tools for everyone else who may be reading this to educate themselves on why men must be assumed to be the perpetrators in domestic violence cases.

I mean, other than that... it's funny how you have been attacking the MRM in pretty much every third post or so, but then you someone calls you out on the fact that you've been spreading nonsense for half of this thread yourself your reaction is to start crying? Is that what a "debate" is about for you?

Either way, unless you provide the evidence I asked for to get this back on track this will be my last post on this part of the debate as it's going nowhere productive.

 

[Rashiminos]

There's a difference between working around feminism and actively attacking it, which i think you know.

Which isn't to say holding the line in some places and pushing back in other places are mutually exclusive. You'd prefer attacking rights only go to feminists. The difference you may be looking for is the difference between bypassing a local stalemate and trying to end it by defeating the other side.

If Men want to share their dislike of women and feminists as a whole on forums such as the Redpill on reddit, good for them but know this; people will look at that and judge them to be a bunch of misogynists because all they ever do is complain and hate and whine. That's the MRA's problem, their PR sucks

Name-calling and mudslinging are attacks (eg "toxic masculinity").

because the people who head the movement and either genuinely vile or don't care and they think this sort of vitriol will help them in the long term, but they should really take a leaf from feminism's book

Useless, if you had been paying more attention to the mirror discussion, you'd realize that MRAs took quite a few pages from feminist books. Or you can think about shadows on a wall if you prefer, useless.

Why would i bother answering when all you've done is insult me and strawman me?

Tell me what sort of feminism i belong to because apparently i am not a "proper feminist" according to you.

Seeing as this thread was originally intended to be a men's rights thread, why are you here?

Spoiler :

Restraining other feminists is a task for feminists, don't you think?

 

[Flying Pig]

'Toxic masculinity' is meant in the sense of 'rotten apples' - and it's as much an attack on everyday masculinity as the latter is on good apples. I think we can all agree that any idea of 'masculinity' that causes people to kill themselves rather than talking about their problems is toxic in the most literal sense.

 

[useless]

I tried to engage with debate in this thread and got told that i was essentially a gender quisling, a man who hates himself and not a "proper feminist" (whatever that means).

This entire thread has been about men complaining about how women are protrayed as victims but rather than doing anything constructive, they merely want to apply the victim status to themselves and then i got this perfunctory response about how suddenly now the MRM only applies to certain sections of the populace and world, all the while people bemoaning about how feminism has done nothing for say Africa or parts of Asia.

The MRM is a joke, they don't care about men because if they did they'd recuse themselves, they make US look bad, everything the MRAs have done reinforces why feminism is right and makes the positions the MRA's claim to hold so dearly and turn them into a joke.

If you want to continue tilting at windmills whilst complaining about how you aren't taken seriously, go ahead.

 

[Farm Boy]

So why are we still talking about feminism everyone? I thought we had threads for that. This is vaguely reminiscent of the American Civil War threadjackings. The thread doesn't get off track unless people want to roll around in the weeds.

 

[useless]

So why are we still talking about feminism everyone? I thought we had threads for that. This is vaguely reminiscent of the American Civil War threadjackings.

It's a competing theory that is the reason for why MRM exists.

 

[Farm Boy]

Ok, so there's nothing to talk about regarding boys education, or middle aged suicide rates, or custody that should not be directed back to feminist theory? It's the catch-all theory for every gender sensitive social issue?

 

[Rashiminos]

'Toxic masculinity' is meant in the sense of 'rotten apples' - and it's as much an attack on everyday masculinity as the latter is on good apples. I think we can all agree that any idea of 'masculinity' that causes people to kill themselves rather than talking about their problems is toxic in the most literal sense.

If "toxic masculinity" is falsely applied to good apples, then it is an attack. Self-immolation isn't a popular topic in the manosphere generally.

 

[useless]

Ok, so there's nothing to talk about regarding boys education, or middle aged suicide rates, or custody that should not be directed back to feminist theory? It's the catch-all theory for every gender sensitive social issue?

All which could be addressed by feminism. People here seem to assume any challenges to the current status quo regarding masculinity is somehow an attack against men, which it patently is not.

 

[warpus]

What's happening is this. Somebody says: "Hey, here's an issue that affects men, can't we talk about that?"

Then somebody else comes out and says: "Sorry, Men's rights groups are all extremist and as such we can't talk about that. Let's talk about feminism instead."

All which could be addressed by feminism.

And you could hammer in a nail with a rock if you really wanted to, sure.

Feminism is a movement that highlights and attempts to address women's issues first and foremost. Issues that affect women.

We are trying to talk about issues that affect men in particular.

 

[Farm Boy]

All which could be addressed by feminism. People here seem to assume any challenges to the current status quo regarding masculinity is somehow an attack against men, which it patently is not.

So that was a "yes" to both questions?

 

[useless]

What's happening is this. Somebody says: "Hey, here's an issue that affects men, can't we talk about that?"

Then somebody else comes out and says: "Sorry, Men's rights groups are all extremist and as such we can't talk about that. Let's talk about feminism instead."

A more accurate version would be this:

Somebody says: "Hey, here's an issue that affects men, can't we talk about that?"

Then somebody else comes out and says: "Feminism can help with that".

And another comes out and proclaims that feminists hate men.

 

[brennan]

Useless, you may have missed all the discussion, since all you ever do is call MRA's misogynists and demand that they follow the feminist line... but discussion has indeed happened. In fact there was a suggestion of how feminists could work with the MRM to make dv laws fairer for the benefit of all without any reference to who believes what just a dozen posts or so ago. If you have any interest in discussion if would be nice if you actually responded to that post.

 

[brennan]

All which could be addressed by feminism. People here seem to assume any challenges to the current status quo regarding masculinity is somehow an attack against men, which it patently is not.

Your position at this stage appears to be that MRAs should stop talking about feminism and address the issues... all of which must be addressed by talking about feminism.

 

[useless]

Your position at this stage appears to be that MRAs should stop talking about feminism and address the issues... all of which must be addressed by talking about feminism.

What my position is that MRAs and feminists should merge into a single collective, from which they can pool their resources to assist gender-related issues and problems.

 

[Rashiminos]

I tried to engage with debate in this thread and got told that i was essentially a gender quisling, a man who hates himself and not a "proper feminist" (whatever that means).

That sounds bad...

This entire thread has been about men complaining about how women are protrayed as victims but rather than doing anything constructive, they merely want to apply the victim status to themselves and then i got this perfunctory response about how suddenly now the MRM only applies to certain sections of the populace and world, all the while people bemoaning about how feminism has done nothing for say Africa or parts of Asia.

This is a bit like saying a species hasn't spread to Africa yet. There's still time for that.

The MRM is a joke, they don't care about men because if they did they'd recuse themselves, they make US look bad, everything the MRAs have done reinforces why feminism is right and makes the positions the MRA's claim to hold so dearly and turn them into a joke.

If you want to continue tilting at windmills whilst complaining about how you aren't taken seriously, go ahead.

Excellent Don Quixote aspersion, now what?

All which could be addressed by feminism. People here seem to assume any challenges to the current status quo regarding masculinity is somehow an attack against men, which it patently is not.

Not all challenges given by the manosphere are directed at feminists and women. There is a divide on whether traditionalism should still be considered acceptable (particularly marriage).

What my position is that MRAs and feminists should merge into a single collective, from which they can pool their resources to assist gender-related issues and problems.

It's hard to merge feminism and meninism when you're busy insisting that feminism take the lead in every issue which amounts to stating that feminism should conquer meninism. (There's a similar argument for meninism, hence the repulsive polarity between the two).