MGTOW, MRM, MRA mens rights, what gives?

[sassafras]

Bah. Instead of looking for ways to meet in the middle, both these movements are attempting to tip the scales in their favor by lingering on the extremes. There is work to be done on both sides to build a society that is respectful of everyone of all races, cultures, genders and marital statuses. That means learning to accept and appreciate people's differences instead of socially engineering them out of everyone.

I don't think the answer lies in opposition and anti-attitudes as they bring about feelings of persecution and violation. You're never going to achieve equality when you're describing it as a 'battle of the sexes.' That automatically brings about the impression that there needs to be a winner and a loser. I'm all for equal rights, but I don't think people like Maureen Dowd are doing society any favours by drawing a hard line in the sand between men and women, nor do I think society has any business imposing on people's relationships based on their expectations of gender roles. It fucking pisses me off to no end to see women who choose to stay at home with their children treated like social pariahs, to say nothing of the flack that gets tossed at stay-at-home fathers.

Here's a novel idea: while we're all about promoting CHOICE, how about we also promote non-judgment? So what if you've got a choice when society dictates that one choice is better than another without taking into account the individual? I'm specifically referring to the people who pass judgment on shit that is none of their fucking business. 'You're crazy for getting married' or 'You're crazy for not having children' or 'You're crazy trying to balance work and a relationship' or 'OMG, why did you pay for your own meal?'' etc, etc, etc. This extends to divorce court. If you're going to pass judgment, look at facts, not archetypes.

That's the true spirit of feminism. It's about inclusion and equality and being accepting of others instead of shoving them into neat little categories. Feminism is not 'Female Superiority;' that's misandry.

 

[ZcM4xzkjgzCjytBc]

This whole thread is gay, all of it

 

[sassafras]

This whole thread is gay, all of it

And now you're part of it. Yay!

 

[muir]

is there a chapter devoted to preserving our bodily essence ?

[video=youtube;0he-LZNzVg0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0he-LZNzVg0[/video]

I can't say i agree with general Rippers position on women but i do agree with his position on flouridation!

Of course by 'commie' he and Senetor MacCarthy didn't really mean the Russians they meant the US east coast establishment centered around the Rockefellers and the Council on Foreign Relations

They confused them with the 'communists' because they were globalists seeking to create a centralised global government (which is not what true communism is about) and they were happy to deal with the communists or fascists or anyone else they thought they could use to further their aims

 

[Blind Bandit]

So much for a serious discussion... Now I remember why I'm never anymore...

 

[Apone]

This whole thread is gay, all of it

http://www.thewellspring.com/wellspring/feeling/2049/positive-or-negative-attention.cfm

 

[Apone]

That's the true spirit of feminism. It's about inclusion and equality and being accepting of others instead of shoving them into neat little categories. Feminism is not 'Female Superiority;' that's misandry.

Actually, it isn't about that.

It's based on the presumption that 'masculine' activities are more desirable than 'feminine' activities and that equality means that women should be allowed into them. I agree that they should because a lot of the former separations are ridiculous and fail to account for the evolving nature of society, but portraying feminism as something that is interested in 'equality' is wrong.

Most feminists don't protest the right for men to gain custody of their children, or for women to pay alimony-- hence, the 'need' for men's movements. But of course, as men are the oppressors of human history, and demanding this sort of equality is perceived as the exclusive property of minorities and victims, these kinds of things are bound to look ridiculous-- feminism has helped to perpetrate the myth that white males cannot be victims of a system, because they ARE the system, and they defined the system… even though that's not true.

The problem is that a lot of the divisions evolved out of necessity or perhaps some other less noble decisions, and then through practice and complacency came to be regarded as 'natural', and then became oppressive… not because men were actively oppressing women or keeping them down, but because they were products of a system that had certain expectations of men and certain expectations of women. Revolution always tends to be rooted in an emotional, not rational response… sometimes it is necessary, but feminism has always flirted with a militant perspective that undermines its credibility.

 

[bamf]

I don't even know where to begin in responding to that...

 

[sassafras]

I don't even know where to begin in responding to that...

That makes two of us.

 

[Nixie]

@Apone
Okay, just so I got this straight...

[presumably Feminism] "It's based on the presumption that 'masculine' activities are more desirable than 'feminine' activities and that equality means that women should be allowed into them".

"but portraying feminism as something that is interested in 'equality' is wrong"

Seriously? I mean, seriously that is what you think? Oh god, thanks for the laugh.

The ideal behind the feminist movement has been about equal rights. That, as a society, we should foster principles of equality and inclusion rather than limited or outright denial of rights based on gender. It is a stance that is generally misunderstood by the oppressor, which without a doubt, has been men, in the case of gender inequalities.

Within the dynamics of any movement that pushes for fundamental changes to the "way things are", there will be varying degrees of militant positions. Yes, there are militant feminists who advocate for harsher measures and actions against men and male authority---the same way that there are men who advocate for the removal of any rights for women (barefoot and pregnant, with the man ruling over them).

The loss of power and the push toward a "matriarchial" society is my favorite ploy. The claim that men are disenfranchised and women are taking over. I even remember hearing that the problem with the crime and whatnot in the inner cities (esp for black people) was because those bad men had been raised by single mothers. That it was the mother's fault and the angst caused by being in a matriarchial setting....of course, nothing was said about the absent men/fathers and how that impacted the situation.

Hopefully there will be a time when the fringe elements of these type of movements will be more interested in finding solutions than placing blame and whinning about their particular circumstances and how it is everyone else's fault that their life is the way it is---unless I am mistaken, there are men and women who are capable of successfully partnering and reaching a satisfying level of living without feeling bad about who did the dishes.

 

[Trifoilum]

why should people hold up to the word 'masculine' and 'feminine', in fact? /sigh

 

[Apone]

Seriously? I mean, seriously that is what you think? Oh god, thanks for the laugh.

The ideal behind the feminist movement has been about equal rights. That, as a society, we should foster principles of equality and inclusion rather than limited or outright denial of rights based on gender. It is a stance that is generally misunderstood by the oppressor, which without a doubt, has been men, in the case of gender inequalities.

It's not men who have been the oppressors it's the system and how it evolved and how it placed certain expectations on certain people to fill certain roles.

Feminism is interested in women having equal say in what have been the traditionally male-dominated social spheres-- the workplace, politics, etc… and NOT in men having equal say in what have been the traditionally female-dominated social spheres--the home, family, child-rearing, etc. It's interested in women's rights, not men's (hence the name feminism). Someone who is interested in equality doesn't say 'me me me', they say 'us us us'. When you emphasize only one side of a struggle, you are taking for granted that men can do whatever they want, and that their roles do not need to be redefined to fit into your 'equal' society. Several posts on this thread have already suggested that it's absurd to imagine that men could ever be concerned about their rights, given they're the evil overlords and everything.

Within the dynamics of any movement that pushes for fundamental changes to the "way things are", there will be varying degrees of militant positions. Yes, there are militant feminists who advocate for harsher measures and actions against men and male authority---the same way that there are men who advocate for the removal of any rights for women (barefoot and pregnant, with the man ruling over them).

So what, because one side does it, it's perfectly fine for the other side to do it too? My point was that when feminism emerged it was necessarily militant, because the society was different and required a stronger response in order to affect change. But since it emerged, society has largely evolved to accommodate many of those demands, but in many ways feminism hasn't been able to escape its militant image… and in previous posts my argument was that if it wants to be effective at producing a genuine change it needs to evolve into something more universal.

The loss of power and the push toward a "matriarchial" society is my favorite ploy. The claim that men are disenfranchised and women are taking over. I even remember hearing that the problem with the crime and whatnot in the inner cities (esp for black people) was because those bad men had been raised by single mothers. That it was the mother's fault and the angst caused by being in a matriarchial setting....of course, nothing was said about the absent men/fathers and how that impacted the situation.

I don't know where you got the idea that I believed we were headed towards matriarchy or that men are disenfranchised… it sounds like you're just jumping to conclusions and misidentifying me as some sort of misogynist who thinks that women should 'get back in the kitchen'. Probably because [MENTION=1009]bamf[/MENTION] said 'I don't even know where to begin with that' (likely after misinterpreting my point) and then everyone else just assumed that he understood and piled on.

On the other hand, this is exactly the kind of thinking I'm talking about. You're assuming that men are just so privileged and so powerful that their rights don't even need to be considered, because we all know what's good and what's bad and what's right and what's wrong, and anyone who disagrees deserves to be shamed and chewed out and laughed at.

Hopefully there will be a time when the fringe elements of these type of movements will be more interested in finding solutions than placing blame and whinning about their particular circumstances and how it is everyone else's fault that their life is the way it is---unless I am mistaken, there are men and women who are capable of successfully partnering and reaching a satisfying level of living without feeling bad about who did the dishes.

I agree with this.

 

[Apone]

I really wish that people would actually respond instead of just giving me a thumbs down, because it's seriously coming off as passive aggressive... and borderline hateful. If you have an articulate opinion that makes mine look as horrible as you seem to think it is, then why not share it and potentially change my obviously wrong-headed belief system? If you're so convinced that I'm wrong and that it's so obvious that what I have to say on the issue is ridiculous, then why not take this as an opportunity to delight in humiliating me even further (since I'm so hateful)?? I promise if you actually come up with articulate points, then I will consider them diplomatically... but this whole 'don't make me laugh' thing is just rude and lame.

Of course all that Stormy1 needed to do was repeat the traditional one-sided argument demonizing males as the number one oppressive force of history who deserve all of the blame is going to get a lot of support. Who doesn't love the idea of black/white good/bad women finally beginning to fight back for justice and truth and 'equality'? It means we can polarize everything and enjoy our victim status and feel completely justified in treating other people like crap based on race/gender/etc.

I'm not hating on women or saying that they belong somewhere or should be subservient or that they can't do anything they want to do... in fact, between 'men are responsible' and 'the system is responsible', I would say that mine is BY FAR the more diplomatic perspective for human beings in general. And I really don't think that things have been as bad as some people want to think. There will always be abusive relationships and exploitation on BOTH sides... even some feminists agree that there can't be women's liberation WITHOUT men's liberation.

Also, you can be critical of popular opinions without completely dismissing them, and find merit in unpopular ones without aligning yourself with them. Part of actually having your own perspective on things means that you aren't afraid to support aspects of unpopular ideas. Not doing this and just gravitating towards something because of how it makes you feel or because not doing so would mean that people might misunderstand you or not like you means that you don't even really care about the truth.

And to say that politics, work, etc. weren't traditionally male-dominated, or that those spheres aren't the ones being given priority by feminists is to completely invalidate the reason for feminism. We have evolved from creatures who needed to fulfill certain roles in order to survive, from hunter gatherer 'might makes right' through agriculture and industrialization into our post-modern society where survival has become less about the more masculine qualities of brute force/aggression/single-mindedness and more dependent on social discourse/relationships/multi-tasking... are you saying I'm wrong here?? Is it not reasonable to suggest that this evolution has happened so quickly that NO ONE has completely adjusted to the change and are still clinging to the outdated gender roles that had NATURALLY defined the social spheres and private/public dynamic out of NECESSITY?? Are you saying that nature/evolution always plays by the 'rules' and makes everything 'fair' and that the so-called patriarchy is an unnatural abomination that is now being corrected only through the inherent virtue of a few strong, heroic women (and men, I guess) who have decided that the tyranny must end?

I'm sorry-- but however un-PC it may seem and however much it may hurt your delicate feelings, it isn't completely unreasonable to suggest that nature, NOT every single human being on the face of the earth who has something dangling between their legs, is responsible for a system that has defined gender roles in a way that some people might find objectionable. This isn't to say that the change isn't necessary or natural, only that it should take into account that this isn't about women resisting male dominance, it's about PEOPLE resisting an outdated SYSTEM that assigns duties to each gender based on the expectations of a now obsolete society.

 

[acd]

I really wish that people would actually respond instead of just giving me a thumbs down, because it's seriously coming off as passive aggressive... and borderline hateful. If you have an articulate opinion that makes mine look as horrible as you seem to think it is, then why not share it and potentially change my obviously wrong-headed belief system? If you're so convinced that I'm wrong and that it's so obvious that what I have to say on the issue is ridiculous, then why not take this as an opportunity to delight in humiliating me even further (since I'm so hateful)?? I promise if you actually come up with articulate points, then I will consider them diplomatically... but this whole 'don't make me laugh' thing is just rude and lame.

Of course all that Stormy1 needed to do was repeat the traditional one-sided argument demonizing males as the number one oppressive force of history who deserve all of the blame is going to get a lot of support. Who doesn't love the idea of black/white good/bad women finally beginning to fight back for justice and truth and 'equality'? It means we can polarize everything and enjoy our victim status and feel completely justified in treating other people like crap based on race/gender/etc.

I'm not hating on women or saying that they belong somewhere or should be subservient or that they can't do anything they want to do... in fact, between 'men are responsible' and 'the system is responsible', I would say that mine is BY FAR the more diplomatic perspective for human beings in general. And I really don't think that things have been as bad as some people want to think. There will always be abusive relationships and exploitation on BOTH sides... even some feminists agree that there can't be women's liberation WITHOUT men's liberation.

Also, you can be critical of popular opinions without completely dismissing them, and find merit in unpopular ones without aligning yourself with them. Part of actually having your own perspective on things means that you aren't afraid to support aspects of unpopular ideas. Not doing this and just gravitating towards something because of how it makes you feel or because not doing so would mean that people might misunderstand you or not like you means that you don't even really care about the truth.

And to say that politics, work, etc. weren't traditionally male-dominated, or that those spheres aren't the ones being given priority by feminists is to completely invalidate the reason for feminism. We have evolved from creatures who needed to fulfill certain roles in order to survive, from hunter gatherer 'might makes right' through agriculture and industrialization into our post-modern society where survival has become less about the more masculine qualities of brute force/aggression/single-mindedness and more dependent on social discourse/relationships/multi-tasking... are you saying I'm wrong here?? Is it not reasonable to suggest that this evolution has happened so quickly that NO ONE has completely adjusted to the change and are still clinging to the outdated gender roles that had NATURALLY defined the social spheres and private/public dynamic out of NECESSITY?? Are you saying that nature/evolution always plays by the 'rules' and makes everything 'fair' and that the so-called patriarchy is an unnatural abomination that is now being corrected only through the inherent virtue of a few strong, heroic women (and men, I guess) who have decided that the tyranny must end?

I'm sorry-- but however un-PC it may seem and however much it may hurt your delicate feelings, it isn't completely unreasonable to suggest that nature, NOT every single human being on the face of the earth who has something dangling between their legs, is responsible for a system that has defined gender roles in a way that some people might find objectionable. This isn't to say that the change isn't necessary or natural, only that it should take into account that this isn't about women resisting male dominance, it's about PEOPLE resisting an outdated SYSTEM that assigns duties to each gender based on the expectations of a now obsolete society.

I'm not hateful.
I articulated my opinion, and you alluded to it.

The thing is, women's rights are a legitimate thing.
Women have had to fight for the right to vote, the right to not be raped by a spouse...the right to make decisions regarding women's health and women's bodies, the right to work and fair pay...

So to say that men's rights are being violated by the dismantling of the oppressive systems that have been created throughout history to keep women subjugated.. yeah. I have a problem with that.

While you may not be personally responsible.. the fact is, historically, patriarchy has subjugated women.. and there has been a legitimate reason for women to fight it and overcome it.
And women have overcome a lot... and it's just silly to me that fringe men's rights groups now demand their rights as a result of women overcoming..I think for the most part, men and women have a lot of agreement about the kind of world they want to live in. Most of the men I know want women to be able to make their own choices.


I can assure you, my feelings are anything but delicate...
You on the other hand, seem rather miffed...

 

[bamf]

Women are dehumanized and have been throughout history. A recent example would be the batshit crazy laws that allude to "women's health," when in they really just seem to be based out of fear regarding sexuality as an empowering part of the female existence. Men are large large supporters of these laws, and men benefit from the subjugation of women. However, when there is a power imbalance, both the oppressed and the oppressor are dehumanized. Feminism is for the benefit of both men and women.

It's a complete misnomer to suggest that feminism is anti-male rights. Birth-rights and parental rights for men are very important to many people, including feminists. However, this doesn't fall under the umbrella term of feminism. It does, however, affect women, and as men are dehumanized by women, women are also dehumanizing themselves. Feminism =/= profit of women over men, but rather gaining equal freedom from discrimination and contempt. As acd said, women's rights are legitimate. Men's rights are also legitimate. If feminism is anti-men, by the same rule, anything that is pro male-rights is anti-women. It's black and white thinking that you're portraying that is part of the problem.

I'm not offended by you. I've heard the same circular logic spouted by many educated yet ignorant people. Individual rights are important, minority rights are important, women's rights are important. It's impossible to change an unjust system without vanguards for niche rights. The existence of such groups or philosophies isn't a threat to the individual if they are willing to admit that they are the product of a system that is unjust and are willing to try and change it. Everyone's rights are important. I'd never disagree with that. Feminism isn't the problem. Also, it doesn't seem that anyone has their panties in a bunch other than you.

 

[Apone]

Women have had to fight for the right to vote, the right to not be raped by a spouse...the right to make decisions regarding our own health, the right to work and now the right to fair pay.

I'm not arguing against any of that... well, except I'm not sure what 'health' means exactly.
And everyone should have the right to vote/not to be raped/get fair pay.

So to say that men's rights are being violated by the dismantling of the oppressive systems that have been created throughout history to keep women subjugated.. yeah. I have a problem with that.

Again, you can be critical of something without dismissing it entirely. Reform and equality is not just about dismantling an oppressive system, you also have to replace them. And it's important to make sure that this replacement system is just, otherwise you'll end up with Stalin. It's not just about screaming 'we deserve this!' over and over, trying to get everything you can because it's suddenly available. Not that ALL feminists do this or that people who identify as feminist can't be rational, just that I think its emphasis on women only leads to this sort of attitude. Just like the men's movements do this for men.

Even though you might find it hard to believe, the 'oppressive systems' aren't ONLY oppressive towards women. They're also oppressive towards men. Oppression is present in BOTH the traditionally male AND female-dominated spaces. The reason that these systems have persisted isn't because every single man in the world privately seeks to subjugate women-- it's because certain PEOPLE, not just men, feel social pressures to behave in a certain manner, and are typically resistant towards ANY kind of social change. It's unfair to say that it was because all men are 'protective' of their 'privileges' or because they actively want to subjugate women... women just as often accepted their roles as natural, because of the same social pressures that caused men to accept theirs. Conforming to social expectations, defined by traditions, which in turn were defined ages ago out of necessity... causes PEOPLE to cling to their identities and their traditions-- and for this reason, it's not so easy for anyone to escape them. That's why there's resistance to things like gay marriage, or socialized health care in the US... you have to naturalize the idea first.

The problem with feminism is that it only focuses on the traditionally male-dominated spheres (which is valid, because they have grown to be more 'important' in modern/post-modern society), but it completely ignores the traditionally female-dominated spheres (which is a con, because they're just as if not more important than the male spheres). And I'm saying that you can't truly achieve equality without reforming BOTH spheres, not that they shouldn't be reformed AT ALL.

And it makes sense why patriarchy thrived for so long.. if you understand the history of agriculture and the rise of private property..but yes, things change..

While you may not be personally responsible.. the fact is, historically, patriarchy has subjugated women.. and there has been a legitimate reason for women to fight it and overcome it.

No, it's one of MANY legitimate reasons for EVERYONE to fight it and overcome it. Rejecting the male perspective because you see it as 'the enemy' is counter-productive and biased. Patriarchy is NOT the ultimate expression of the male perspective, or an outward expression of male desire, or whatever... there are plenty of men who aren't lusty pigs, or wife-beaters, or obnoxious, aggressive louts... on the other hand, a lot of men who would have otherwise despised these sorts of things are driven towards this kind of behavior by society, because it expects that of them. There are feminists out there who actively reinforce this as well, because it suits the whole 'male dominance' narrative, which they feel is integral to their beliefs... I'm saying that this narrative should be completely thrown out and the focus should be on reforming the NOW to best suit the needs of everyone involved.

And women have overcome a lot... and it's just absurd to me that men's groups now demand their rights as a result of women overcoming..

Not as a result of women overcoming, as a result of the male half of the 'revolution' being completely ignored. If you combined the positives from BOTH movements then you would have a purer and less biased movement that would actively seek what is best for BOTH genders. You're taking for granted that men always enjoy what they're doing and fulfilling their social roles, when in fact plenty of men are largely disillusioned and alienated by the same system that women have fought against. If feminism were more open towards positive forms of men's liberation (thereby making itself into a HUMAN liberation group instead of a FEMALE liberation group), then all of these disenfranchised men (which you seem to think don't exist) wouldn't be driven into the counter-productive phenomena of misogyny, resentment, identity crisis, insecurity, etc... and I think you'll agree that male insecurity is rampant. Where certain 'feminists' would proclaim this insecurity due to their being threatened by females in power, I would argue that it's more a result of the emphasis shifting to redefine the female identity while completely ignoring the male identity, assuming that 'men can take care of themselves'.

I can assure you, my feelings are anything but delicate...
You on the other hand, seem rather miffed...

Well obviously you are a little upset or you wouldn't have bothered to express your disapproval. I am pretty frustrated because I feel like I'm being judged and belittled without being understood.

 

[acd]

You don't need to take a condescending tone with me, @Apone . I am quite capable of understanding how cultures operate. I don't need a lesson in cultural anthropology from you.

Yes, the oppressor demeans themselves as they demean the population they oppress.
So if men feel disenfranchised by the system, they should take steps to change the system instead of blaming women...who didn't write the laws that supposedly are oppressing according to men's rights advocates... Working with women would probably be the best way to a solution...
That point has already been made several times in this thread.

I understand that men may struggle with the expectations placed on them... all the more reason to join with women..instead of blame them.

 

[Billy]

I'm not hateful.
I articulated my opinion, and you alluded to it.

The thing is, women's rights are a legitimate thing.
Women have had to fight for the right to vote, the right to not be raped by a spouse...the right to make decisions regarding women's health and women's bodies, the right to work and fair pay...

So to say that men's rights are being violated by the dismantling of the oppressive systems that have been created throughout history to keep women subjugated.. yeah. I have a problem with that.

While you may not be personally responsible.. the fact is, historically, patriarchy has subjugated women.. and there has been a legitimate reason for women to fight it and overcome it.
And women have overcome a lot... and it's just silly to me that fringe men's rights groups now demand their rights as a result of women overcoming..I think for the most part, men and women have a lot of agreement about the kind of world they want to live in. Most of the men I know want women to be able to make their own choices.


I can assure you, my feelings are anything but delicate...
You on the other hand, seem rather miffed...

What rights are they even claiming, these mens groups... I listen to a lot of this stuff and it just sounds like whining... what rights are they going for? Granted, the Courts fuck men... this is beyond a doubt true and needs to be addressed... but it seems like the majority of the teeth gnashing comes from guys who are angry that theyre not in charge of the relationship anymore... I dont get it.

 

[Billy]

It's a complete misnomer to suggest that feminism is anti-male rights. Birth-rights and parental rights for men are very important to many people, including feminists.

Not to nit pick, but this is not true. The majority of vocal feminists are not about equal rights. Did you see the story about the guy who invented the cotton seed extract pill to make the male birth control pill? He was shouted down by feminist groups, and the feminists were saying that men basically had no right to this kind of treatment because they (women) didnt fight for their birth control rights only to have to share it with men. That didnt make sense to me, why would a woman object to a male taking male birth control? it doesnt stop her from taking her own form of contraception, it just covers his ass... they didnt like that. They didnt want men to have ANY right to decide when child would be conceived That is a very common mentality among many feminists.

 

[acd]

Not to nit pick, but this is not true. The majority of vocal feminists are not about equal rights. Did you see the story about the guy who invented the cotton seed extract pill to make the male birth control pill? He was shouted down by feminist groups, and the feminists were saying that men basically had no right to this kind of treatment because they (women) didnt fight for their birth control rights only to have to share it with men. That didnt make sense to me, why would a woman object to a male taking male birth control? it doesnt stop her from taking her own form of contraception, it just covers his ass... they didnt like that. They didnt want men to have ANY right to decide when child would be conceived That is a very common mentality among many feminists.

Link?

That sounds.. bizarre.
If it's safe and effective for men, I don't see a problem.