The NS Mens Rights Thread

[Ostroeuropa]

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 MRM has repeatedly pointed out that they are willing to work with feminists once the legitimacy of their narrative is accepted.
We accept the feminist narrative is the gynocentric perspective.
We reject it as a universal perspective.

We feel that an androcentric perspective, in addition to a gynocentric one, is necessary for equality to be achieved.

You are right that it's a matter of swallowing pride and growing up. Feminists need to admit their movement failed to help men. They need to grow up and work with the MRM.

[Mir i Ljubav]

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.

^^

Because of this, religion isn't something which we can just get rid of. We need to get rid of the people using religion to perform this function, and the system which they manage.

[The Serbian Empire]

"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...

The problem is religion is a conservatively restricting view which is problem causing and thus forcing societal norms.

[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 MRM has repeatedly pointed out that they are willing to work with feminists once the legitimacy of their narrative is accepted.
We accept the feminist narrative is the gynocentric perspective.
We reject it as a universal perspective.

I see what you mean, but making such a distinction only puts more fuel into the fire. In short, you're blaming feminists for not listening. Sounds about right. What does gynocentric mean, by the way?

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

^^

Because of this, religion isn't something which we can just get rid of. We need to get rid of the people using religion to perform this function, and the system which they manage.

I'm not so sure.
Teaching critical thinking and the scientific method in schools would probably deal a crippling blow to religion.

[Ashkera]

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 problems absolutely are interdependent, but the activist movements are not egalitarian. People noticed this and there was a split.

I expect some will work together. There are some feminists I trust and respect. But as a political movement, it has too much to lose by letting go of the narrative.

[Adnan Nawaz And Bureacrats Elsewhere]

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.

^^

Because of this, religion isn't something which we can just get rid of. We need to get rid of the people using religion to perform this function, and the system which they manage.

I like the sound of that. I've always played with anti-theism. It's a dirty little temptation of mine, to tax churches within an inch of their lives and watch vicars cry as their churches are deconstructed to make space for new museums.

[Ostroeuropa]

The MRM has repeatedly pointed out that they are willing to work with feminists once the legitimacy of their narrative is accepted.
We accept the feminist narrative is the gynocentric perspective.
We reject it as a universal perspective.

I see what you mean, but making such a distinction only puts more fuel into the fire. In short, you're blaming feminists for not listening. Sounds about right. What does gynocentric mean, by the way?

Gynocentric means from a womans or a feminist perspective.
It's tautological on that second point, but the contention of the MRM is that the feminist ideology is a framework designed from a womans perspective, and that while men can utilize it, it is ill suited to fixing mens problems as a result of that.

Yes, i'm blaming feminists for not listening.
As I said, I don't think the parties are equally to blame for this mess. I think neutral people thinking that don't know the full extent of the history of our movement.

[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 problems absolutely are interdependent, but the activist movements are not egalitarian. People noticed this and there was a split.

I expect some will work together. There are some feminists I trust and respect. But as a political movement, it has too much to lose by letting go of the narrative.

Wait. I thought feminism intended to be egalitarian. That throws a bit of a spinner in the works, does it not?

[Ostroeuropa]

The problems absolutely are interdependent, but the activist movements are not egalitarian. People noticed this and there was a split.

I expect some will work together. There are some feminists I trust and respect. But as a political movement, it has too much to lose by letting go of the narrative.

Wait. I thought feminism intended to be egalitarian. That throws a bit of a spinner in the works, does it not?

The feminist movement is not egalitarian.
Some Feminists might be.
I think they are in the wrong movement.

[Adnan Nawaz And Bureacrats Elsewhere]

I see what you mean, but making such a distinction only puts more fuel into the fire. In short, you're blaming feminists for not listening. Sounds about right. What does gynocentric mean, by the way?

Gynocentric means from a womans or a feminist perspective.
It's tautological on that second point, but the contention of the MRM is that the feminist ideology is a framework designed from a womans perspective, and that while men can utilize it, it is ill suited to fixing mens problems as a result of that.

Yes, i'm blaming feminists for not listening.
As I said, I don't think the parties are equally to blame for this mess. I think neutral people thinking that don't know the full extent of the history of our movement.

So, the blame is all on the feminists?

I hate feminism. It's misogynistic, insulting and treats its target audience like shit with empty promises, but at least have the decency to accept some blame for your respective ideology.

[Adnan Nawaz And Bureacrats Elsewhere]

Wait. I thought feminism intended to be egalitarian. That throws a bit of a spinner in the works, does it not?

The feminist movement is not egalitarian.
Some Feminists might be.
I think they are in the wrong movement.

I thought so. I thought feminism in practice is opposite to intention. I think it intends to be egalitarian, but really it's trying to solve the issues of all genders by focusing on one of them. As you call it, it's gynocentric.

[Ostroeuropa]

Gynocentric means from a womans or a feminist perspective.
It's tautological on that second point, but the contention of the MRM is that the feminist ideology is a framework designed from a womans perspective, and that while men can utilize it, it is ill suited to fixing mens problems as a result of that.

Yes, i'm blaming feminists for not listening.
As I said, I don't think the parties are equally to blame for this mess. I think neutral people thinking that don't know the full extent of the history of our movement.

So, the blame is all on the feminists?

I hate feminism. It's misogynistic, insulting and treats its target audience like shit with empty promises, but at least have the decency to accept some blame for your respective ideology.

I would say most of the blame is on feminism.
What you don't understand is that the MRM lacks institutional power to abuse.
That pretty much necessitates that all the major abuses of power will come from the feminist side.

We lack the media power to spread lies about them to the public, etc.

We're a grassroots movement opposing an entrenched status quo.
I don't actually know of any instances where I would confidently say the MRM has mistreated the feminist movement.

Part of the reason for that is our belief that we hold the moral high ground, and do not want to lose it.

[The Rich Port]

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.

Admittedly, but at least religion can be divorced from that. It's an abstract concept, it can have exceptions. Not functional ones, but still, exceptions.

The problem is getting people to abandon faith altogether. I think it would be far more constructive to abandon rigid, blind faith first, especially the ones found in religious institutions.

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.

Also, ancient social mores being preserved to today. Patriarchy was alive and well 2,000 years ago.

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 problem with ignoring fringe groups is that they don't stay fringe groups for long if the people creating the fringe groups and wishing to join them aren't given a reason not to.

While Ostro and Ashkera are dismissive and conspiratorial, Gallo does bring up a good point, and that's that feminism has tunnel vision.

Admittedly, women have been severely oppressed throughout history, but so have men to a large extent. Maybe not as much as women, but still to an extent where it must be addressed.

I think it's also that "fraternity" mentality. "Bros before hoes", after all. Men and women have the old stereotype of the "sex wars" and whatnot, that women would not have their interests in mind, only men would, and vice versa, and that's something that the patriarchy would want to emphasize.

By making women think they'll never be respected by men and having men think they'll never be respected by women, the patriarchy wins, and all feminists are therefore divided along gender lines.

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.



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.

See, the thing is, we've brought those issues up before, and we've given them all the attention they deserve.

But you don't care. Because you're both implying I'm some brainwashed pussy whipped beta male who is just there as a token and hoping I'm there to have sex with the women there.

It's bullshit that's older than time.

Fuck the MRM and fuck your patronizing bullshit.

[Tahar Joblis]

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.

The historical narrative surrounding "men's rights" vs "men's liberation," as expressed by feminists and applied to the modern MRM, is pretty much a shell game.

Warren Farrell came from the "men's liberation" side of the fence. His background was within the feminist movement; he wrote "The Liberated Man," in fact, in 1974. He viewed men's issues as important, and continued to do so, which led to feminists attacking him viciously; he is the closest thing to the intellectual father of the present MRM. He's been the single highest profile individual identified with men's rights - and yet his origins are definitively on the "men's liberation" side of the fence.

The National Coalition For Men, one of the only "men's rights" groups, is roughly on the same side now as Warren Farrell: The side of men's activists who are actually interested in addressing men's issues.

Michael Kimmel came from the same side of the fence. He decided that men's problems were trivial except inasmuch as they created problems for women. He and his organization are essentially part of the feminist movement that describes itself as "men's liberation" without actually wanting to help men.

The modern MRM is not a "splinter" of anything historical. It's mostly something entirely new... and draws as much directly from the feminist movement of the past as it does from men's rights, men's liberation, men's movement, fathers' rights, etc groups of the past.

There is more continuity to be had in talking about the feminist movement as a historical group opposed to drinking, strongly interested in the promotion of religiosity, and perfectly content to have abortion kept illegal. There is also more reactionary sentiment in the present feminist movement than the present MRM.

[Adnan Nawaz And Bureacrats Elsewhere]

So, the blame is all on the feminists?

I hate feminism. It's misogynistic, insulting and treats its target audience like shit with empty promises, but at least have the decency to accept some blame for your respective ideology.

I would say most of the blame is on feminism.
What you don't understand is that the MRM lacks institutional power to abuse.
That pretty much necessitates that all the major abuses of power will come from the feminist side.

We lack the media power to spread lies about them to the public, etc.

We're a grassroots movement opposing an entrenched status quo.
I don't actually know of any instances where I would confidently say the MRM has mistreated the feminist movement.

Part of the reason for that is our belief that we hold the moral high ground, and do not want to lose it.

Again with the blame game. Still, even if you don't have institutional power, you cannot employ binary opposition to point the feminists of being totally evil and the MRAs as victims. It is not that simple.

[Ostroeuropa]

See, the thing is, we've brought those issues up before, and we've given them all the attention they deserve.

But you don't care. Because you're both implying I'm some brainwashed pussy whipped beta male who is just there as a token and hoping I'm there to have sex with the women there.

It's bullshit that's older than time.

Fuck the MRM and fuck your patronizing bullshit.

The tunnel vision of feminism is why we need the MRM.

That is not what we are implying at all. You are conflating us with the red pill again.

For one thing, i'm feminine as fuck. I'm almost certain they'd call me a beta.

We're not conspiratorial. We think your ideology sucks. We think applying it causes problems.

I don't think conservatives are engaged in a conspiracy to fuck up the economy and ruin everything. I think they're fucking wrong.

I think the same of feminists. You've repeatedly failed to grasp that.

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

The historical narrative surrounding "men's rights" vs "men's liberation," as expressed by feminists and applied to the modern MRM, is pretty much a shell game.

Warren Farrell came from the "men's liberation" side of the fence. His background was within the feminist movement; he wrote "The Liberated Man," in fact, in 1974. He viewed men's issues as important, and continued to do so, which led to feminists attacking him viciously; he is the closest thing to the intellectual father of the present MRM. He's been the single highest profile individual identified with men's rights - and yet his origins are definitively on the "men's liberation" side of the fence.

The National Coalition For Men, one of the only "men's rights" groups, is roughly on the same side now as Warren Farrell: The side of men's activists who are actually interested in addressing men's issues.

Michael Kimmel came from the same side of the fence. He decided that men's problems were trivial except inasmuch as they created problems for women. He and his organization are essentially part of the feminist movement that describes itself as "men's liberation" without actually wanting to help men.

The modern MRM is not a "splinter" of anything historical. It's mostly something entirely new... and draws as much directly from the feminist movement of the past as it does from men's rights, men's liberation, men's movement, fathers' rights, etc groups of the past.

There is more continuity to be had in talking about the feminist movement as a historical group opposed to drinking, strongly interested in the promotion of religiosity, and perfectly content to have abortion kept illegal. There is also more reactionary sentiment in the present feminist movement than the present MRM.

I tried explaining to him that feminists lied to him about this, but he didn't want to hear it.
That's not all feminists. Just the ones who are fucking sexists.

[The Rich Port]

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.

^^

Because of this, religion isn't something which we can just get rid of. We need to get rid of the people using religion to perform this function, and the system which they manage.

Thank you.

Well, at the very least, starting with religious institutions would be a stepping stone to getting rid of religion entirely.

But anyway.

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.

The historical narrative surrounding "men's rights" vs "men's liberation," as expressed by feminists and applied to the modern MRM, is pretty much a shell game.

Warren Farrell came from the "men's liberation" side of the fence. His background was within the feminist movement; he wrote "The Liberated Man," in fact, in 1974. He viewed men's issues as important, and continued to do so; he is the closest thing to the intellectual father of the present MRM. He's been the single highest profile individual identified with men's rights - and yet his origins are definitively on the "men's liberation" side of the fence.

The National Coalition For Men, one of the only "men's rights" groups, is roughly on the same side now as Warren Farrell: The side of men's activists who are actually interested in addressing men's issues.

Michael Kimmel came from the same side of the fence. He decided that men's problems were trivial except inasmuch as they created problems for women. He and his organization are essentially part of the feminist movement that describes itself as "men's liberation" without actually wanting to help men.

The modern MRM is not a "splinter" of anything historical. It's mostly something entirely new... and draws as much directly from the feminist movement of the past as it does from men's rights, men's liberation, men's movement, fathers' rights, etc groups of the past.

There is more continuity to be had in talking about the feminist movement as a historical group opposed to drinking, strongly interested in the promotion of religiosity, and perfectly content to have abortion kept illegal. There is also more reactionary sentiment in the present feminist movement than the present MRM.

I'm well aware of what the history of both movements are, which makes it all the more insipid when I hear MRM's favorably comparing past feminist movements to today's "feminazis".

And it makes your claim that contemporary feminism is reactionary all the more annoyingly repeated.

[Adnan Nawaz And Bureacrats Elsewhere]

Adnan Nawaz And Bureacrats Elsewhere wrote:
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 problem with ignoring fringe groups is that they don't stay fringe groups for long if the people creating the fringe groups and wishing to join them aren't given a reason not to.

While Ostro and Ashkera are dismissive and conspiratorial, Gallo does bring up a good point, and that's that feminism has tunnel vision.

Admittedly, women have been severely oppressed throughout history, but so have men to a large extent. Maybe not as much as women, but still to an extent where it must be addressed.

I think it's also that "fraternity" mentality. "Bros before hoes", after all. Men and women have the old stereotype of the "sex wars" and whatnot, that women would not have their interests in mind, only men would, and vice versa, and that's something that the patriarchy would want to emphasize.

By making women think they'll never be respected by men and having men think they'll never be respected by women, the patriarchy wins, and all feminists are therefore divided along gender lines.

You believe in a patriarchy? That sucks, because I agreed with everything you said accept about the patriarchy? Are you a feminist?

Fuck the MRM and fuck your patronizing bullshit.

I don't know. Unaligned maybe? Or...maybe itching towards Sarkeesian territory.

[Tahar Joblis]

Let me underline one particular statement. (Since The Rich Port wasn't precisely expressing the standard feminist line about "men's rights" vs "men's liberation," the above post is a bit of a rant in the direction of something he wasn't saying, which really isn't quite cricket of me.)

The modern men's rights movement is not a "splinter" of anything. It is larger, more active, and more popular than any activism on behalf of men at any point in the past, with a broader base.

It is appropriate to say it has some roots in the past, but calling it a "splinter" of men's activism contemporary to the early 2nd wave of feminism (or during the later 1st wave of feminism) is like calling second wave feminism a "splinter" of women working during WWII.

[Ostroeuropa]

^^

Because of this, religion isn't something which we can just get rid of. We need to get rid of the people using religion to perform this function, and the system which they manage.

Thank you.

Well, at the very least, starting with religious institutions would be a stepping stone to getting rid of religion entirely.

But anyway.

The historical narrative surrounding "men's rights" vs "men's liberation," as expressed by feminists and applied to the modern MRM, is pretty much a shell game.

Warren Farrell came from the "men's liberation" side of the fence. His background was within the feminist movement; he wrote "The Liberated Man," in fact, in 1974. He viewed men's issues as important, and continued to do so; he is the closest thing to the intellectual father of the present MRM. He's been the single highest profile individual identified with men's rights - and yet his origins are definitively on the "men's liberation" side of the fence.

The National Coalition For Men, one of the only "men's rights" groups, is roughly on the same side now as Warren Farrell: The side of men's activists who are actually interested in addressing men's issues.

Michael Kimmel came from the same side of the fence. He decided that men's problems were trivial except inasmuch as they created problems for women. He and his organization are essentially part of the feminist movement that describes itself as "men's liberation" without actually wanting to help men.

The modern MRM is not a "splinter" of anything historical. It's mostly something entirely new... and draws as much directly from the feminist movement of the past as it does from men's rights, men's liberation, men's movement, fathers' rights, etc groups of the past.

There is more continuity to be had in talking about the feminist movement as a historical group opposed to drinking, strongly interested in the promotion of religiosity, and perfectly content to have abortion kept illegal. There is also more reactionary sentiment in the present feminist movement than the present MRM.

I'm well aware of what the history of both movements are, which makes it all the more insipid when I hear MRM's favorably comparing past feminist movements to today's "feminazis".

And it makes your claim that contemporary feminism is reactionary all the more annoyingly repeated.

If you're aware of it, why did you fuck it up earlier and claim it was linked to other movements like the mens rights league?
Was it a lie?
Or are you lying now?

So you basically admit that feminism fucked the dog and completely failed men in the past.
Well then, like I said, you can't just demand us to come back. We founded our own movement.

Feminisms hit to it's reputation, and ultimately being a fucking failure of a movement for gender equality, is the penalty it pays for their sexism in the 80s.

That might suck for current feminists, but the UK can't just fucking annex ireland because it's butthurt. Deal with it

[Tahar Joblis]

You believe in a patriarchy? That sucks, because I agreed with everything you said accept about the patriarchy? Are you a feminist?

You have quoted me as saying things that I did not say. You should fix this.

[The Rich Port]

Adnan Nawaz And Bureacrats Elsewhere wrote:
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 problem with ignoring fringe groups is that they don't stay fringe groups for long if the people creating the fringe groups and wishing to join them aren't given a reason not to.

While Ostro and Ashkera are dismissive and conspiratorial, Gallo does bring up a good point, and that's that feminism has tunnel vision.

Admittedly, women have been severely oppressed throughout history, but so have men to a large extent. Maybe not as much as women, but still to an extent where it must be addressed.

I think it's also that "fraternity" mentality. "Bros before hoes", after all. Men and women have the old stereotype of the "sex wars" and whatnot, that women would not have their interests in mind, only men would, and vice versa, and that's something that the patriarchy would want to emphasize.

By making women think they'll never be respected by men and having men think they'll never be respected by women, the patriarchy wins, and all feminists are therefore divided along gender lines.

You believe in a patriarchy? That sucks, because I agreed with everything you said accept about the patriarchy? Are you a feminist?

Fuck the MRM and fuck your patronizing bullshit.

I don't know. Unaligned maybe? Or...maybe itching towards Sarkeesian territory.

I don't believe in a rigid, gubernatorial patriarchy written into the stone, more a societal patriarchy encouraged and practiced by conservatives of all stripes.

After all... Not everyone in America is a Republican.

Nor is every man in America a feminist or an MRA.

Or every American a white Protestant.

In fact, it's rather affected the whole world, and I never even noticed until I was a teenager.

Well, to be fair... I guess it would have been weird if I were professing for women's equality as a little 4-year-old.

[Mir i Ljubav]

^^

Because of this, religion isn't something which we can just get rid of. We need to get rid of the people using religion to perform this function, and the system which they manage.

I'm not so sure.
Teaching critical thinking and the scientific method in schools would probably deal a crippling blow to religion.

That can't happen until we get rid of...well, a bunch of shit which is restricting human potential.