The NS Mens Rights Thread

[Ostroeuropa]

Sexuality and gender identification are both very nice examples.

If you look at any identifications other than "straight" or "gay," including but not limited to:

• Bisexual
• Asexual
• Pansexual
• Demisexual
• Sapiosexual

Any of these categories, you'll see far more women than men. You'll also see a lot more comfort with and acceptance of those labels. That's because outside of "straight" and "gay" (heterosexual / homosexual) it's a little bit muddy what any of those labels means. (Even with bisexuality - we could be talking anywhere from Kinsey 2-5, potentially.)

Gender identity is another big one. Transwomen face intense violence, because if their gender identity comes across as ambiguous leading to misgendering, they are received as a man with an ambiguous gender identity. Transmen, on the other hand, when their gender identity comes across as ambiguous leading to misgendering, they are received as a masculine woman, which is OK.

Ok this may back fire...What is "sapiosexual"?

Someone who contends they are attracted to sapient (Intelligent) creatures and that the rest is bunkam.
Can include fictional creatures. (Indeed, basically has to, until we find some aliens.)

For further research, google furries and pony porn.

Sometimes includes the notion that higher intelligence causes higher sexual attraction.
If primarily attracted to intelligence, you can call yourself sapiosexual without necessarily meaning to include other creatures.

[The Alexanderians]

Ok this may back fire...What is "sapiosexual"?

Someone who contends they are attracted to sapient (Intelligent) creatures and that the rest is bunkam.
Can include fictional creatures. (Indeed, basically has to, until we find some aliens.)

For further research, google furries and pony porn.

I figured like elves and lamias and such but didn't want to assume.

[Cenetra]

Check the side-bar here and "Our Mission."

Yeh, i've been there and posted there.
Basically it's all a flat denial that there is any problem with the feminist movements frame of reference and assertions of universality.
I got banned for pointing out that the media consistently pushes gynocentric feminism, even if dualistic feminists exist. (I did this in a thread where someone was asking why feminists are attacking men in the media. I was pointing out some feminists don't agree with the feminism being pushed and the one being pushed is sexist. Got banned as a result of admitting any form of feminism is sexist.)

So your mission is a PR job, and it hasn't managed to fool me. You only started to get going once you realized the MRM is going to gain steam. You don't actually care about men, you just want to derail the MRM.
Nor has it managed to fool most of MensRights, nor the Egalitarian subs.

You also banned discussion of some male issues.

Criticism of feminist ideology is in general banned too, and criticism of women and the part they play in upholding sexism in generals spooks you guys.

So it's a useless ideology. It'll collapse in on itself as more and more AMRats take it over, just like feminism for men did.
Because you people refuse to critically examine feminism, you are incapable of liberating men.

Just looked up that sub. Holy mackerel, those rules:

Any article or discussion pertinent to men's interests is appropriate for submission.

We do not discuss "financial abortion" in the context of consensual sex. More on this policy here.

So, you can talk about all men's issues, except, you know, one of the big ones where men are at a massive legal disadvantage in terms of reproductive rights.

Meanwhile, the mission statement appears to blame all men's problems on "Patriarchy" (translation: women are wonderful, don't you dare suggest that women might help perpetuate these problems) and "toxic masculinity" (translation: masculinity is bad). Oh, and you can't criticize feminism either.

In short, Menslib sounds about as productive as a 1960s Civil Rights movement which bans criticizing segregation and blames all problems on black culture being morally defective.

[The Alexanderians]

-snip-

Meanwhile, the mission statement appears to blame all men's problems on "Patriarchy" (translation: women are wonderful, don't you dare suggest that women might help perpetuate these problems) and "toxic masculinity" (translation: masculinity is bad). Oh, and you can't criticize feminism either.

In short, Menslib sounds about as productive as a 1960s Civil Rights movement which bans criticizing segregation and blames all problems on black culture being morally defective.

Sounds like they set up shop at my college. We've had multiple speakers on "toxic masculinity" and the women's center has all but demanded a documentary on the subject be sold in the bookstore.

[Alyakia]

Yeh, i've been there and posted there.
Basically it's all a flat denial that there is any problem with the feminist movements frame of reference and assertions of universality.
I got banned for pointing out that the media consistently pushes gynocentric feminism, even if dualistic feminists exist. (I did this in a thread where someone was asking why feminists are attacking men in the media. I was pointing out some feminists don't agree with the feminism being pushed and the one being pushed is sexist. Got banned as a result of admitting any form of feminism is sexist.)

So your mission is a PR job, and it hasn't managed to fool me. You only started to get going once you realized the MRM is going to gain steam. You don't actually care about men, you just want to derail the MRM.
Nor has it managed to fool most of MensRights, nor the Egalitarian subs.

You also banned discussion of some male issues.

Criticism of feminist ideology is in general banned too, and criticism of women and the part they play in upholding sexism in generals spooks you guys.

So it's a useless ideology. It'll collapse in on itself as more and more AMRats take it over, just like feminism for men did.
Because you people refuse to critically examine feminism, you are incapable of liberating men.

Just looked up that sub. Holy mackerel, those rules:

Any article or discussion pertinent to men's interests is appropriate for submission.

We do not discuss "financial abortion" in the context of consensual sex. More on this policy here.

So, you can talk about all men's issues, except, you know, one of the big ones where men are at a massive legal disadvantage in terms of reproductive rights.

Meanwhile, the mission statement appears to blame all men's problems on "Patriarchy" (translation: women are wonderful, don't you dare suggest that women might help perpetuate these problems) and "toxic masculinity" (translation: masculinity is bad). Oh, and you can't criticize feminism either.

In short, Menslib sounds about as productive as a 1960s Civil Rights movement which bans criticizing segregation and blames all problems on black culture being morally defective.

that sounds really dumb. nobody said that women cannot perpetuate patriarchial structures. are you sure you aren't just projecting and throwing up strawwomen?

[Ostroeuropa]

Yeh, i've been there and posted there.
Basically it's all a flat denial that there is any problem with the feminist movements frame of reference and assertions of universality.
I got banned for pointing out that the media consistently pushes gynocentric feminism, even if dualistic feminists exist. (I did this in a thread where someone was asking why feminists are attacking men in the media. I was pointing out some feminists don't agree with the feminism being pushed and the one being pushed is sexist. Got banned as a result of admitting any form of feminism is sexist.)

So your mission is a PR job, and it hasn't managed to fool me. You only started to get going once you realized the MRM is going to gain steam. You don't actually care about men, you just want to derail the MRM.
Nor has it managed to fool most of MensRights, nor the Egalitarian subs.

You also banned discussion of some male issues.

Criticism of feminist ideology is in general banned too, and criticism of women and the part they play in upholding sexism in generals spooks you guys.

So it's a useless ideology. It'll collapse in on itself as more and more AMRats take it over, just like feminism for men did.
Because you people refuse to critically examine feminism, you are incapable of liberating men.

Just looked up that sub. Holy mackerel, those rules:

Any article or discussion pertinent to men's interests is appropriate for submission.

We do not discuss "financial abortion" in the context of consensual sex. More on this policy here.

So, you can talk about all men's issues, except, you know, one of the big ones where men are at a massive legal disadvantage in terms of reproductive rights.

Meanwhile, the mission statement appears to blame all men's problems on "Patriarchy" (translation: women are wonderful, don't you dare suggest that women might help perpetuate these problems) and "toxic masculinity" (translation: masculinity is bad). Oh, and you can't criticize feminism either.

In short, Menslib sounds about as productive as a 1960s Civil Rights movement which bans criticizing segregation and blames all problems on black culture being morally defective.

Yeh pretty much.
It's feminisms attempt to be able to fix mens issues from within it's extremely narrow frame of reference. It doesn't work very well.

Imagine in it kind of like a flat earth society desperate attempting to use science to prove the world is flat a while after the world is round thing started gaining steam, and you'll see why the MRM thinks they are just funny people.

[The Alexanderians]

Just looked up that sub. Holy mackerel, those rules:





So, you can talk about all men's issues, except, you know, one of the big ones where men are at a massive legal disadvantage in terms of reproductive rights.

Meanwhile, the mission statement appears to blame all men's problems on "Patriarchy" (translation: women are wonderful, don't you dare suggest that women might help perpetuate these problems) and "toxic masculinity" (translation: masculinity is bad). Oh, and you can't criticize feminism either.

In short, Menslib sounds about as productive as a 1960s Civil Rights movement which bans criticizing segregation and blames all problems on black culture being morally defective.

that sounds really dumb. nobody said that women cannot perpetuate patriarchial structures. are you sure you aren't just projecting and throwing up strawwomen?

Try and sit through some of their seminars, as a man I've come away from multiple (When I thought I was a feminist) of them feeling ashamed of my sex, my gender, and my sexuality. Not to say all of them, but they are bad at this sort of thing.

[Ostroeuropa]

that sounds really dumb. nobody said that women cannot perpetuate patriarchial structures. are you sure you aren't just projecting and throwing up strawwomen?

Try and sit through some of their seminars, as a man I've come away from multiple (When I thought I was a feminist) of them feeling ashamed of my sex, my gender, and my sexuality. Not to say all of them, but they are bad at this sort of thing.

This is the other thing.
They constantly push their ideology like this, and men have routinely told them how it feels and such, and instead of thinking maybe there is something wrong with their ideology and the way it is structured, they just blame the men some more and tell them their feelings are wrong.

That feminism is overwhelmingly a label adopted by women should give them pause, but they just refuse to even countenance the idea that their belief system is fucked up and needs to be changed.

Menslib is the latest expression of that stubbornness.

TRP and MGTOW radicals assert womens refusal to listen to the MRM, or indeed, men in general about their problems, is an expression of a biological defect in women where they are not capable of proper empathy with men and consider their problems to be caused by themselves, and never women, and that this sort of causes this problem. That they are just literally incapable of understanding that they are causing the problem, instead of it being mens fault.

TRP and MGTOW radicals sometimes point to the "Testosterone linked to fairness" studies to bolster their argument.

MRAs are more likely to say this is a result of women being raised as gynocentrists, and there is no physical flaw, merely a case of them being raised to be this way in a culture heavy with "The Unfair Sex" trope, in combination with them being raised to suppress sympathy for victimized men.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheUnfairSex

"But wasn't it her fault as well as the man's?"
"Nothing is ever a lady's fault, you'll learn that," Lord Trimingham told me.
This remark, confirming something I already felt, made an immense impression on me.

If you'd told feminists how their gynocentric rantings made you feel, you would have been blamed for it.
If the MRM is right, that's because women are raised to be highly resistant to the idea that anything is ever their fault, and are supplied with endless rationalizations in the media, from other women, and from feminism, as to how she can shunt responsibility for her actions onto others, often her victims.
If it's the TRP or MGTOW Radicals, it's because women are just broken, and will never be capable of being functioning citizens.

Meanwhile men are raised to consistently defend women from other men even if they are being unfair.

[Hirota]

They constantly push their ideology like this, and men have routinely told them how it feels and such, and instead of thinking maybe there is something wrong with their ideology and the way it is structured, they just blame the men some more and tell them their feelings are wrong.

In my experience the radical lunatic fringe of any ideological group tends to push their ideology with little more than fanatic fervor and guilt rather than rationalism, logic and facts.

This isn't confined to feminism - for example, cults do very similar things.

http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm

The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion

Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

[Bloodbath Generation]

I am a man, and I consider myself a feminist in the most basic sense; I believe women and men should have equal rights and opportunities in all aspects of life. However, "feminists" who give a bad name to the movement by making it a point to bring down the opposite gender are not true feminists; they simply carry the label to try and give credibility to their cause.

Mens rights is something that has existed as long as law has; from the Muslim world and its ideas of male dominance over his wife and other women, to the highest positions in companies, which are still dominated by men. Since men have always had the head up over women in this regard, it is women who have to work for equal rights. This doesn't mean men can't fight for ones that benefit them when it's sensible.

With crimes such as suicide, rape and the like, the stigma behind male victims comes from both sides; for example, if a woman commits a sexual crime against a man, she could be portrayed in a better light than a male perpetrator, such as in the case of Brianne Altice; many commented on her physical appearance, saying the boys "got lucky" instead of acknowledging her crime. The "macho" concept is another factor in why these crimes against men go under the rug. Men are expected to be strong, to be dominant; if this is lacking, so, in some peoples minds, is his identity as a man. Changing these attitudes are the key to achieving true "mens rights".

[Tahar Joblis]

I am a man, and I consider myself a feminist in the most basic sense; I believe women and men should have equal rights and opportunities in all aspects of life. However, "feminists" who give a bad name to the movement by making it a point to bring down the opposite gender are not true feminists; they simply carry the label to try and give credibility to their cause.

You are only a feminist so long as you refrain from confronting the "feminists" you describe.

When that time comes, you will find yourself no longer a feminist. They will disown you - yes, including the "true" feminists - for being a man who dares to disagree.

Mens rights is something that has existed as long as law has; from the Muslim world and its ideas of male dominance over his wife and other women, to the highest positions in companies, which are still dominated by men.

This is an ahistorical position that does not refer meaningfully to men's rights.

Since men have always had the head up over women in this regard, it is women who have to work for equal rights. This doesn't mean men can't fight for ones that benefit them when it's sensible.

With crimes such as suicide, rape and the like, the stigma behind male victims comes from both sides; for example, if a woman commits a sexual crime against a man, she could be portrayed in a better light than a male perpetrator, such as in the case of Brianne Altice; many commented on her physical appearance, saying the boys "got lucky" instead of acknowledging her crime. The "macho" concept is another factor in why these crimes against men go under the rug. Men are expected to be strong, to be dominant; if this is lacking, so, in some peoples minds, is his identity as a man. Changing these attitudes are the key to achieving true "mens rights".

Attitudes about men having to conform to a rigid definition of masculinity will not change through feminism; nor will they change without changing women, who make up the front line of gender role enforcement.

[Terminus Alpha]

Yeah, you didn't convince me. I think we have more than just a few differences in thought, so I'm just going to say goodbye.

Didn't convince you of what, exactly?
Do you disagree with the posts I put out? Because that'd be a great way to demonstrate to everyone that Menslib is just feminism pretending to be for men.
I didn't convince you of the necessity to allow men to have a space to talk about gender issues without worrying about womens opinion of them? (Like women have)?
Or was it that I failed to convince you of the media bias in favor of gynocentrism?

I mean, your whole post here is basically you deciding not to engage with the argument I laid out.
I contend that's because you have no argument, and can only assert your gynocentrism in response to it.
"Patriarcheez and Wimminz haz it worse, sexism against men impossibru."
Which hasn't been going well for you guys in terms of PR, now has it.

This is why I'd like to disengage. I presented my point of view, and you came up with a conspiracy theory that Men's Lib just wants to "derail the MRM." You aren't interested in a conversation or a debate, because anything that I bring up is automatically Gynocentrism and sexism against men. If you wanted me to have an honest conversation, you wouldn't have said "Patriarcheez and Wimminz haz it worse, sexism against men impossibru." That's a thought terminating statement, not an argument. Nothing you have presented thus far has made me want to stick around and conversation.

(And I know that me posting this doesn't disengage me, but I'd feel better if you knew why I stopped.)

[Cenetra]

This is the other thing.
They constantly push their ideology like this, and men have routinely told them how it feels and such, and instead of thinking maybe there is something wrong with their ideology and the way it is structured, they just blame the men some more and tell them their feelings are wrong.
Menslib is the latest expression of that stubbornness.

Basically, the thought process seems to be:

"Hmm, feminism seems to be having difficulty reaching out to men. Is it possible there's something wrong with the messages we're sending?"

"Nahh, it's the men's fault for being misogynists. Just demonize them some more and they'll come through."

(rinse, repeat).

But yeah, it seems like feminist-affiliated groups and MRA-affiliated groups talk about gender roles in a very different way.

With MRAs, I usually see a "Forcing people into gender roles is bad, because of individual freedom, e.g. stereotyping men as dominant or aggressive, or putting social pressure on them to be dominant or aggressive is harmful.

With feminists, the angle seems to be more: "Men being dominant or aggressive is an inherently bad thing, and harms men and women (but mostly women).

What this seems to lead to is guys going: "Hang on, I'm on board with getting rid of the stigma against feminine guys, but I like being a manly man, and liking trucks and football, and sometimes telling dirty jokes to my friends. Why are you acting like this makes me a bad person?"

[Tahar Joblis]

Didn't convince you of what, exactly?
Do you disagree with the posts I put out? Because that'd be a great way to demonstrate to everyone that Menslib is just feminism pretending to be for men.
I didn't convince you of the necessity to allow men to have a space to talk about gender issues without worrying about womens opinion of them? (Like women have)?
Or was it that I failed to convince you of the media bias in favor of gynocentrism?

I mean, your whole post here is basically you deciding not to engage with the argument I laid out.
I contend that's because you have no argument, and can only assert your gynocentrism in response to it.
"Patriarcheez and Wimminz haz it worse, sexism against men impossibru."
Which hasn't been going well for you guys in terms of PR, now has it.

This is why I'd like to disengage. I presented my point of view, and you came up with a conspiracy theory that Men's Lib just wants to "derail the MRM." You aren't interested in a conversation or a debate, because anything that I bring up is automatically Gynocentrism and sexism against men. If you wanted me to have an honest conversation, you wouldn't have said "Patriarcheez and Wimminz haz it worse, sexism against men impossibru." That's a thought terminating statement, not an argument. Nothing you have presented thus far has made me want to stick around and conversation.

(And I know that me posting this doesn't disengage me, but I'd feel better if you knew why I stopped.)

It's very weird to look at /r/MensLib with a historical perspective, considering that the original author of The Liberated Man has been demonized and libeled by feminists for over a quarter century now (and particularly viciously for the last 15-20).

A lot of the residents of /r/MensLib seem to consider Warren Farrell awful, on the basis of believing the feminist rhetoric about him.

Seriously, for several years - and largely on the basis of a shitty Wikipedia article that pro-feminists have somehow kept intact - I've been listening to feminists unwittingly trot out the "division" between men's rights and men's liberation in 1970s-era groups as if the modern MRM is somehow exclusively descended from the former.

Ignore things like the "National Coalition of Free Men," now (for many years) "National Coalition For Men." Ignore The Liberated Man. Ignore the fact that anyone who continued to actually focus on liberating men has ended up under an umbrella labeled - from the outside even if they would prefer not to hold the label - "Men's Rights."

[Haktiva]

In other news, Britain's National Sperm Bank only has 9 registered donors after being open for a year.


It most likely having something to do with the loss of a man's anonymity, as there have been cases of sperm donors ending up on the hook for child support. That and criminal backgrounds and health concerns, of course, but methinks the threat of being forced to pay child support for donating sperm is a big factor. Kids are expensive, and the government doesn't wanna pay for all the illegitimate kids. Neither do the guys, apparently.

[Fartsniffage]

In other news, Britain's National Sperm Bank only has 9 registered donors after being open for a year.


It most likely having something to do with the loss of a man's anonymity, as there have been cases of sperm donors ending up on the hook for child support. That and criminal backgrounds and health concerns, of course, but methinks the threat of being forced to pay child support for donating sperm is a big factor. Kids are expensive, and the government doesn't wanna pay for all the illegitimate kids. Neither do the guys, apparently.

That might be the case. But it would only be because potential donors are dumb as dog-shit. The kids can only trace them after they hit 18 and the donor is never responsible for the child if the process is completed through the sperm bank.

But good on you for assuming that men are stupid.

[Haktiva]

In other news, Britain's National Sperm Bank only has 9 registered donors after being open for a year.


It most likely having something to do with the loss of a man's anonymity, as there have been cases of sperm donors ending up on the hook for child support. That and criminal backgrounds and health concerns, of course, but methinks the threat of being forced to pay child support for donating sperm is a big factor. Kids are expensive, and the government doesn't wanna pay for all the illegitimate kids. Neither do the guys, apparently.

That might be the case. But it would only be because potential donors are dumb as dog-shit. The kids can only trace them after they hit 18 and the donor is never responsible for the child if the process is completed through the sperm bank.

But good on you for assuming that men are stupid.

the person is smart, people are stupid.

[Fartsniffage]

That might be the case. But it would only be because potential donors are dumb as dog-shit. The kids can only trace them after they hit 18 and the donor is never responsible for the child if the process is completed through the sperm bank.

But good on you for assuming that men are stupid.

the person is smart, people are stupid.

Which makes the assumption that men are making the decision not to donate as some kind of unit rather than as individuals. Is there some kind of hive mind for men that I've not been told about?

[Haktiva]

the person is smart, people are stupid.

Which makes the assumption that men are making the decision not to donate as some kind of unit rather than as individuals. Is there some kind of hive mind for men that I've not been told about?

the green weenie.

[Fartsniffage]

Which makes the assumption that men are making the decision not to donate as some kind of unit rather than as individuals. Is there some kind of hive mind for men that I've not been told about?

the green weenie.

I have no idea what you're babbling about.

[Haktiva]

the green weenie.

I have no idea what you're babbling about.

good.

[Haktiva]

A little humor, that was banned from reddit.

[Fartsniffage]

I have no idea what you're babbling about.

good.

Ah. So you're here to troll. gg.

[The Princes of the Universe]

I have no idea what you're babbling about.

good.

Pretty sure shitposting is considered spam.

[Haktiva]

good.

Ah. So you're here to troll. gg.

answering sarcasm the best way I know how