The NS Mens Rights Thread

[The Rich Port]

Well, no.

It's widely believed hunter-gatherer civilizations of both the past and the present had and have no conception of "gender roles" specifically because of scarcity. Well, the modern ones, not so much, due to the fact they are surrounded and therefore forced to interact with sedentary civilizations, and inevitably assimilate into those civilizations and otherwise adopt their views.

Well, I'm not originally an American, but the problem was the same... It's just that there were less people willing to make a fuss about it, because it's Puerto Rico, and my people are somehow more jingoistic and conservative than the Tea Party movement.

Explain?

Well, yes, but do you find yourself disagreeing with some feminists who are from North America or Europe, or Asia, or Australia, specifically prominent feminists about feminist issues and how their arguments are constructed (and, mind, are mainstream arguments in their regions)?

If so, you might have a different way of thinking about feminism than the mainstream population which you are actually arguing with.

I'm from El Salvador, so I've seen feminism in El Salvador and from my experiences with Mexican people, they also have a different experience with feminism than in the U.S. so how do you explain these differences?

Not ideologically, no. However, as Galloism said, there's problems with the practice, and that's because feminism is evolving constantly.

All of the examples in the OP, for example, has been an issue with me since my teenage years, about a decade ago, when I saw an episode of Law & Order: SVU and decided I needed to be pro-active when it comes to the rape of men.

Something that MRAs have zero grounding for when the MRA movement is a splinter from men's liberation whose predecessors are groups like the League of Men's Rights who wanted to stop women from getting jobs.

The Three goddamn Stooges knew better.

[Ostroeuropa]

Well, yes, but do you find yourself disagreeing with some feminists who are from North America or Europe, or Asia, or Australia, specifically prominent feminists about feminist issues and how their arguments are constructed (and, mind, are mainstream arguments in their regions)?

If so, you might have a different way of thinking about feminism than the mainstream population which you are actually arguing with.

I'm from El Salvador, so I've seen feminism in El Salvador and from my experiences with Mexican people, they also have a different experience with feminism than in the U.S. so how do you explain these differences?

Not ideologically, no. However, as Galloism said, there's problems with the practice, and that's because feminism is evolving constantly.

All of the examples in the OP, for example, has been an issue with me since my teenage years, about a decade ago, when I saw an episode of Law & Order: SVU and decided I needed to be pro-active when it comes to the rape of men.

Something that MRAs have zero grounding for when the MRA movement is a splinter from men's liberation whose predecessors are groups like the League of Men's Rights who wanted to stop women from getting jobs.

The Three goddamn Stooges knew better.

So your problem with MRAs is their ideology has a bad history.
Do you think you could try interacting with the present for a moment?

I mean, feminists are a bunch of sexists. Just look at all the sexist shit they said throughout history. They're clearly rotten to the core.
And racists too.
And transphobic.

Except no.
The MRM criticism of feminism is current.
Your criticism of the MRM is not.

Movements change.
Feminism changed.
So did the MRM.

As you point out, they evolve constantly.
Feminism has evolved into something hateful, bigoted, and ugly.
The MRM has evolved into a gender equality movement from mens perspective.

If you ask these MRAs, they'll tell you their movement takes it's roots in the 80s, when NOW went full retard and opposed shared custody so lots of men quit the feminist movement, including Warren Farrell. Most would tell you Farrell is the founder.
You know, that "We need a gender transition movement" guy.

They'd probably argue he founded this movement.
The rest of it? It's mostly feminists conflating this movement with other ones, because they cannot fucking stand mens issues being given the time of day, so they compare it to theredpill, to the mens league, they'll lie about anything they can and conflate whatever movements they need to.

You've fallen for it.

[Gauthier]

So what do they think of the Islamic State's practice of rendering captive females as sexual conquests?

[Internationalist Bastard]

So what do they think of the Islamic State's practice of rendering captive females as sexual conquests?

I don'g know what that has to do with this but it's really fucked up.

[The Rich Port]

Not ideologically, no. However, as Galloism said, there's problems with the practice, and that's because feminism is evolving constantly.

All of the examples in the OP, for example, has been an issue with me since my teenage years, about a decade ago, when I saw an episode of Law & Order: SVU and decided I needed to be pro-active when it comes to the rape of men.

Something that MRAs have zero grounding for when the MRA movement is a splinter from men's liberation whose predecessors are groups like the League of Men's Rights who wanted to stop women from getting jobs.

The Three goddamn Stooges knew better.

So your problem with MRAs is their ideology has a bad history.
Do you think you could try interacting with the present for a moment?

I mean, feminists are a bunch of sexists. Just look at all the sexist shit they said throughout history. They're clearly rotten to the core.
And racists too.
And transphobic.

Except no.
The MRM criticism of feminism is current.
Your criticism of the MRM is not.

Movements change.
Feminism changed.
So did the MRM.

As you point out, they evolve constantly.
Feminism has evolved into something hateful, bigoted, and ugly.
The MRM has evolved into a gender equality movement from mens perspective.

If you ask these MRAs, they'll tell you their movement takes it's roots in the 80s, when NOW went full retard and opposed shared custody so lots of men quit the feminist movement, including Warren Farrell. Most would tell you Farrell is the founder.
You know, that "We need a gender transition movement" guy.

They'd probably argue he founded this movement.
The rest of it? It's mostly feminists conflating this movement with other ones, because they cannot fucking stand mens issues being given the time of day, so they compare it to theredpill, to the mens league, they'll lie about anything they can and conflate whatever movements they need to.

You've fallen for it.

... I think I should have listened to myself a few posts ago and blocked you.

So what do they think of the Islamic State's practice of rendering captive females as sexual conquests?

Serves those feminazis right for tempting all those men into being jingoistic animals.

Admittedly, though, all this talk of MRAs makes me realize that maybe I should bring this up at the next Atheist Alliance and the Feminists Student Alliance, so that we can start focusing on the oppression of men by patriarchy so nobody feels that they need to defect to an MRM group for some asinine reason.

[Ostroeuropa]

So what do they think of the Islamic State's practice of rendering captive females as sexual conquests?

I don'g know what that has to do with this but it's really fucked up.

It's obviously criminal and barbaric.
The men, however, are killed.

We can get into which is worse, but ultimately it's subjective.
Personally, I would say the women got the worse end of this one.

But the crucial fact to remember is that Islamic State thugs do not give anyone any rights at all except themselves. It is not merely an issue of misogyny.

In fact, our reporting on ISIS and the general tone of conversation about them is very misandrist, because it erases male victims.

https://archive.is/y9dFf

ISIS sinks even lower, beheads women for the first time.

[Gauthier]

I don'g know what that has to do with this but it's really fucked up.

It's obviously criminal and barbaric.
The men, however, are killed.

We can get into which is worse, but ultimately it's subjective.
Personally, I would say the women got the worse end of this one.

But the crucial fact to remember is that Islamic State thugs do not give anyone any rights at all except themselves. It is not merely an issue of misogyny.

In fact, our reporting on ISIS and the general tone of conversation about them is very misandrist, because it erases male victims.

https://archive.is/y9dFf

ISIS sinks even lower, beheads women for the first time.

Except of course there hasn't been any mention of females in the Islamic State hierarchy or inner circle, unless you're alleging that The Liberal Media is concealing evidence of female Islamic State leadership. And I'm not talk token religious patrol leaders.

[The Rich Port]

I don'g know what that has to do with this but it's really fucked up.

It's obviously criminal and barbaric.
The men, however, are killed.

We can get into which is worse, but ultimately it's subjective.
Personally, I would say the women got the worse end of this one.

But the crucial fact to remember is that Islamic State thugs do not give anyone any rights at all except themselves. It is not merely an issue of misogyny.

In fact, our reporting on ISIS and the general tone of conversation about them is very misandrist, because it erases male victims.

https://archive.is/y9dFf

ISIS sinks even lower, beheads women for the first time.

They've kind of made an awful choice. And that's ignoring that women are subhuman within the Islamic State.

If it were the opposite, and it were a bunch of women making men into subhuman slaves, I would also not be opposed to their deaths.

[Ostroeuropa]

... I think I should have listened to myself a few posts ago and blocked you.

That's not really addressing any of my points. Not that you meant to, i'm just pointing out you didn't address them.

You claim feminisms evolution should exempt it from past sins.
Fine.

But you don't accept this for the MRM.

You criticize the MRM based on a history that none of it's members identify with, and who would tell you you are conflating their movement with another one.

You then reject criticism of CURRENT feminism out of hand, on the basis of feminisms history. Which you've already washed your hands of.

I don't think anyone is going to be fooled.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's obviously criminal and barbaric.
The men, however, are killed.

We can get into which is worse, but ultimately it's subjective.
Personally, I would say the women got the worse end of this one.

But the crucial fact to remember is that Islamic State thugs do not give anyone any rights at all except themselves. It is not merely an issue of misogyny.

In fact, our reporting on ISIS and the general tone of conversation about them is very misandrist, because it erases male victims.

https://archive.is/y9dFf

Except of course there hasn't been any mention of females in the Islamic State hierarchy or inner circle, unless you're alleging that The Liberal Media is concealing evidence of female Islamic State leadership. And I'm not talk token religious patrol leaders.

I don't particularly see what the gender of the perpetrators has to do with it.


For one thing, gender roles would have men take spots of official leadership and responsibility, as well as getting killed.
That everyone falls into their assigned roles in a trad con fuckery is to be expected.

The important thing to remember is that women also drive those roles and enforce them. It is not just men who do so.

You're pulling the
"Mens problems are trivial, and their own fault besides." shit that has led so many to the MRM. Keep it up.

You're also ignoring the fact I just showed you that, ignoring Isil, our own press is definately misandrist.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's obviously criminal and barbaric.
The men, however, are killed.

We can get into which is worse, but ultimately it's subjective.
Personally, I would say the women got the worse end of this one.

But the crucial fact to remember is that Islamic State thugs do not give anyone any rights at all except themselves. It is not merely an issue of misogyny.

In fact, our reporting on ISIS and the general tone of conversation about them is very misandrist, because it erases male victims.

https://archive.is/y9dFf

They've kind of made an awful choice. And that's ignoring that women are subhuman within the Islamic State.

If it were the opposite, and it were a bunch of women making men into subhuman slaves, I would also not be opposed to their deaths.

I'm not refering to the men in ISIS.
I'm refering to male captives.
They get killed. I could have been clearer perhaps, but it's interesting that you assumed the men I was talking about must be the perpetrators instead of seeking clarification. Perhaps that's not fair, it probably isn't, i'll admit.

But yes, I dont' care if the ISIS thugs get shot or whatever. Fuck em. I agree with you there.

[The Serbian Empire]

So your problem with MRAs is their ideology has a bad history.
Do you think you could try interacting with the present for a moment?

I mean, feminists are a bunch of sexists. Just look at all the sexist shit they said throughout history. They're clearly rotten to the core.
And racists too.
And transphobic.

Except no.
The MRM criticism of feminism is current.
Your criticism of the MRM is not.

Movements change.
Feminism changed.
So did the MRM.

As you point out, they evolve constantly.
Feminism has evolved into something hateful, bigoted, and ugly.
The MRM has evolved into a gender equality movement from mens perspective.

If you ask these MRAs, they'll tell you their movement takes it's roots in the 80s, when NOW went full retard and opposed shared custody so lots of men quit the feminist movement, including Warren Farrell. Most would tell you Farrell is the founder.
You know, that "We need a gender transition movement" guy.

They'd probably argue he founded this movement.
The rest of it? It's mostly feminists conflating this movement with other ones, because they cannot fucking stand mens issues being given the time of day, so they compare it to theredpill, to the mens league, they'll lie about anything they can and conflate whatever movements they need to.

You've fallen for it.

... I think I should have listened to myself a few posts ago and blocked you.

So what do they think of the Islamic State's practice of rendering captive females as sexual conquests?

Serves those feminazis right for tempting all those men into being jingoistic animals.

Admittedly, though, all this talk of MRAs makes me realize that maybe I should bring this up at the next Atheist Alliance and the Feminists Student Alliance, so that we can start focusing on the oppression of men by patriarchy so nobody feels that they need to defect to an MRM group for some asinine reason.

At this point, feminism can't get rid of the patriarchy because it is a creature that in reality is religion. Rid the world of religion and then the "patriarchy" disappears.

[Internationalist Bastard]

... I think I should have listened to myself a few posts ago and blocked you.



Serves those feminazis right for tempting all those men into being jingoistic animals.

Admittedly, though, all this talk of MRAs makes me realize that maybe I should bring this up at the next Atheist Alliance and the Feminists Student Alliance, so that we can start focusing on the oppression of men by patriarchy so nobody feels that they need to defect to an MRM group for some asinine reason.

At this point, feminism can't get rid of the patriarchy because it is a creature that in reality is religion. Rid the world of religion and then the "patriarchy" disappears.

What about religions that don't support patriarchy?

[The Rich Port]

They've kind of made an awful choice. And that's ignoring that women are subhuman within the Islamic State.

If it were the opposite, and it were a bunch of women making men into subhuman slaves, I would also not be opposed to their deaths.

I'm not refering to the men in ISIS.
I'm refering to male captives.
They get killed. I could have been clearer perhaps, but it's interesting that you assumed the men I was talking about must be the perpetrators instead of seeking clarification. Perhaps that's not fair, it probably isn't, i'll admit.

But yes, I dont' care if the ISIS thugs get shot or whatever. Fuck em. I agree with you there.

What male captives?

The captured ones that DON'T subscribe to the Islamic State's barbaric practices?

Why wouldn't YOU make that clarification?

Also, note I never discriminated between the two. I merely talked about women's position within ISIS.

... I think I should have listened to myself a few posts ago and blocked you.

That's not really addressing any of my points. Not that you meant to, i'm just pointing out you didn't address them.

You claim feminisms evolution should exempt it from past sins.
Fine.

But you don't accept this for the MRM.

You criticize the MRM based on a history that none of it's members identify with, and who would tell you you are conflating their movement with another one.

You then reject criticism of CURRENT feminism out of hand, on the basis of feminisms history. Which you've already washed your hands of.

I don't think anyone is going to be fooled.

Because I'm done dignifying your asinine posts.

I don't know what's more asinine: you claiming feminism has "past sins" or you claiming I've been blindsided by feminism.

The only being fooled is you, by yourself.

[Gauthier]

... I think I should have listened to myself a few posts ago and blocked you.



Serves those feminazis right for tempting all those men into being jingoistic animals.

Admittedly, though, all this talk of MRAs makes me realize that maybe I should bring this up at the next Atheist Alliance and the Feminists Student Alliance, so that we can start focusing on the oppression of men by patriarchy so nobody feels that they need to defect to an MRM group for some asinine reason.

At this point, feminism can't get rid of the patriarchy because it is a creature that in reality is religion. Rid the world of religion and then the "patriarchy" disappears.

"All Animals Are Equal. But Some Are More Equal Than Others."

Getting rid of religion won't get rid of the innate desire of some people to dominate others. They'd twist secular or atheistic creed to get the exact same end results.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm not refering to the men in ISIS.
I'm refering to male captives.
They get killed. I could have been clearer perhaps, but it's interesting that you assumed the men I was talking about must be the perpetrators instead of seeking clarification. Perhaps that's not fair, it probably isn't, i'll admit.

But yes, I dont' care if the ISIS thugs get shot or whatever. Fuck em. I agree with you there.

What male captives?

The captured ones that DON'T subscribe to the Islamic State's barbaric practices?

Why wouldn't YOU make that clarification?

That's not really addressing any of my points. Not that you meant to, i'm just pointing out you didn't address them.

You claim feminisms evolution should exempt it from past sins.
Fine.

But you don't accept this for the MRM.

You criticize the MRM based on a history that none of it's members identify with, and who would tell you you are conflating their movement with another one.

You then reject criticism of CURRENT feminism out of hand, on the basis of feminisms history. Which you've already washed your hands of.

I don't think anyone is going to be fooled.

Because I'm done dignifying your asinine posts.

I don't know what's more asinine: you claiming feminism has "past sins" or you claiming I've been blindsided by feminism.

The only being fooled is you, by yourself.

Because I considered it heavily implied by linking an article in the western press about Isis sinking lower for beheading women, and bemoaning our erasure of the male victims?
I thought I was being pretty clear, to be honest.

Did you think I meant Isis were cutting their own heads off and I felt sorry for them?

But the crucial fact to remember is that Islamic State thugs do not give anyone any rights at all except themselves.

Yeh, I was being SO unclear here.

[The Rich Port]

... I think I should have listened to myself a few posts ago and blocked you.



Serves those feminazis right for tempting all those men into being jingoistic animals.

Admittedly, though, all this talk of MRAs makes me realize that maybe I should bring this up at the next Atheist Alliance and the Feminists Student Alliance, so that we can start focusing on the oppression of men by patriarchy so nobody feels that they need to defect to an MRM group for some asinine reason.

At this point, feminism can't get rid of the patriarchy because it is a creature that in reality is religion. Rid the world of religion and then the "patriarchy" disappears.

Eh, sadly, it's not that simple.

While religion has definitely aggravated the blind adhesion to traditional social mores and roles, it's also helped in some cases.

Religion is rather neutral in that case.

Now, religious institutions... Yes, feminism would surely benefit from their dismantlement, since, within them, tradition is a matter of written code rather than general assumptions. Also, the fact religious institutions can follow logic, but choose not to.

[Ashkera]

So what do they think of the Islamic State's practice of rendering captive females as sexual conquests?

Serves those feminazis right for tempting all those men into being jingoistic animals.

Apparently you really believe them to be the cartoonish, villainous caricatures their rivals' propaganda portrays them as.

Reminds me of the time feminists claimed that "MRAs" were against the latest Mad Max movie, but actual MRAs didn't care about it and some of them even liked it.

Admittedly, though, all this talk of MRAs makes me realize that maybe I should bring this up at the next Atheist Alliance and the Feminists Student Alliance, so that we can start focusing on the oppression of men by patriarchy so nobody feels that they need to defect to an MRM group for some asinine reason.

That'll last until the moment a woman steps and demands to know "why are we wasting all this effort on men, when women are the ones most in need?" Then any of your efforts in that direction will be shoved under the rug or turned into really being about women. A few men will notice, go looking for the opposition, and new MRAs will be made.

Only a new theoretical framework can prevent this.

[Ostroeuropa]

Serves those feminazis right for tempting all those men into being jingoistic animals.

Apparently you really believe them to be the cartoonish, villainous caricatures their rivals' propaganda portrays them as.

Reminds me of the time feminists claimed that "MRAs" were against the latest Mad Max movie, but actual MRAs didn't care about it and some of them even liked it.

Admittedly, though, all this talk of MRAs makes me realize that maybe I should bring this up at the next Atheist Alliance and the Feminists Student Alliance, so that we can start focusing on the oppression of men by patriarchy so nobody feels that they need to defect to an MRM group for some asinine reason.

That'll last until the moment a woman steps and demands to know "why are we wasting all this effort on men, when women are the ones most in need?" Then any of your efforts in that direction will be shoved under the rug or turned into really being about women. A few men will notice, go looking for the opposition, and new MRAs will be made.

Only a new theoretical framework can prevent this.

Pretty much.
Which is why, by all means, do so The Rich Port.
In fact i'd love to see some progress. Being proven wrong might be upsetting on occasion, but it leads to self-improvement.
But I'd bet dollars to donuts it goes exactly how Ashkera said.

[The Serbian Empire]

At this point, feminism can't get rid of the patriarchy because it is a creature that in reality is religion. Rid the world of religion and then the "patriarchy" disappears.

Eh, sadly, it's not that simple.

While religion has definitely aggravated the blind adhesion to traditional social mores and roles, it's also helped in some cases.

Religion is rather neutral in that case.

Now, religious institutions... Yes, feminism would surely benefit from their dismantlement, since, within them, tradition is a matter of written code rather than general assumptions. Also, the fact religious institutions can follow logic, but choose not to.

"Patriarchy" is encoded in Islam and in most sects of Christianity. Is it any wonder that the religious are less likely to support women's rights.

[Gauthier]

Eh, sadly, it's not that simple.

While religion has definitely aggravated the blind adhesion to traditional social mores and roles, it's also helped in some cases.

Religion is rather neutral in that case.

Now, religious institutions... Yes, feminism would surely benefit from their dismantlement, since, within them, tradition is a matter of written code rather than general assumptions. Also, the fact religious institutions can follow logic, but choose not to.

"Patriarchy" is encoded in Islam and in most sects of Christianity. Is it any wonder that the religious are less likely to support women's rights.

And Ultraorthodox Judaism is egalitarian?

[The Rich Port]

Serves those feminazis right for tempting all those men into being jingoistic animals.

Apparently you really believe them to be the cartoonish, villainous caricatures their rivals' propaganda portrays them as.

Reminds me of the time feminists claimed that "MRAs" were against the latest Mad Max movie, but actual MRAs didn't care about it and some of them even liked it.

Admittedly, though, all this talk of MRAs makes me realize that maybe I should bring this up at the next Atheist Alliance and the Feminists Student Alliance, so that we can start focusing on the oppression of men by patriarchy so nobody feels that they need to defect to an MRM group for some asinine reason.

That'll last until the moment a woman steps and demands to know "why are we wasting all this effort on men, when women are the ones most in need?" Then any of your efforts in that direction will be shoved under the rug or turned into really being about women. A few men will notice, go looking for the opposition, and new MRAs will be made.

Only a new theoretical framework can prevent this.

I'm sure that'll happen and I'll be an MRA come next week.

Probably not, though.

Eh, sadly, it's not that simple.

While religion has definitely aggravated the blind adhesion to traditional social mores and roles, it's also helped in some cases.

Religion is rather neutral in that case.

Now, religious institutions... Yes, feminism would surely benefit from their dismantlement, since, within them, tradition is a matter of written code rather than general assumptions. Also, the fact religious institutions can follow logic, but choose not to.

"Patriarchy" is encoded in Islam and in most sects of Christianity. Is it any wonder that the religious are less likely to support women's rights.

True, but then you have the people who don't follow the written rules and do whatever they want.

The Anglican Church, for example.

I suppose I'm looking at this more from a "religion is just a bad idea in general" view and not a "religion is conservatively constricting" view.

I assume anyone would abandon a religion for logic...

I'm thinking that's my problem...

[Gauthier]

True, but then you have the people who don't follow the written rules and do whatever they want.

The Anglican Church, for example.

I suppose I'm looking at this more from a "religion is just a bad idea in general" view and not a "religion is conservatively constricting" view.

I assume anyone would abandon a religion for logic...

I'm thinking that's my problem...

Religion in general is a Hobbesian social contract, meant to encourage people to behave in a certain prescribed sets of manners in exchange for a promise of paradise, enlightment or what have you to keep down the likelihood of amoral and solipsistic apeshit. It also makes it useful for douchebags who like to see that prescribed behavior bent to subservience.

[Adnan Nawaz And Bureacrats Elsewhere]

Oh yay. Another fringe group. Whilst I do think that there are issues with men's rights, segregating the issues from the opposite gender only splits gender equality. The problems of men and women are interdependent on each other. You cannot possibly say that the issues of men and women are separate. Both sides need to collaborate together, which means swallowing pride and growing up.

[The Serbian Empire]

Religion in general is a Hobbesian social contract, meant to encourage people to behave in a certain prescribed sets of manners in exchange for a promise of paradise, enlightment or what have you to keep down the likelihood of amoral and solipsistic apeshit.

Religion is inherently patriarchal due to physical gender dimorphism favoring physical power to being male.