The NS Mens Rights Thread

[Forsher]

Just like feminism this is also bullshit

I've never seen someone derail an entire thread in just 7 words. Nice try, though.

Well, the only reason you are right is that your post was requiredn Sadly for you and the thread's overall quality, this is also what makes you wrong.

Next time, try Hirota's less "point scoring" approach even if it means you don't get to make a condescending and snappy reply because, hey, that is a style of response which won't create the mountain you did. And here I am making said mountain higher in hope that next time the mature methods of Hirota are followed.

Hilariously, bvb here is also not off topic and makes a point that is easily understood and only wrkng in that it equates, without question, an entirely online phenomena with one with irl manifestations. That is, the good things that the MRM might agree with and which some might try to ascribe to it, have nothing to do with the MRM. (I do not exclude the possibility that some members of said irl things identify as MRAs when saying this.)

[MRAs Are Dumb]

Men already have more rights than women. What's wrong with changing that around temporarily, in the name of feminism, to give them a taste of their own medicine? Nonetheless, to taste equality, one must be oppressed first. It's time for men to be.

[Forsher]

Men already have more rights than women. What's wrong with changing that around temporarily, in the name of feminism, to give them a taste of their own medicine? Nonetheless, to taste equality, one must be oppressed first. It's time for men to be.

What you have unwittingly stumbled across is the misleading use of the term 'rights' in this broader discussion. That is, only very stupid people think that men and women in the developed world (in countries like the US with more developed abortion laws) have substantively different rights. Such discrimination (i.e. substantive is an operative word) is illegal. The diacussion generally uses rights as a convenient short hand/historical legacy (like an appendix) for broader ideas relating to gender inequality. Good work.

Also, the MRM is more naive than stupid to the extent that it is not acutely aware that baggage is an issue for movements. That is, I would argue most of the issues endemic to feminism that MRAs are generally acutely aware of apply to the MRM to at least the same extent and often moreso but this tends to not be noticed. Somehow, I feel as if this is somewhat to empathetic as a criticism to be appreciated by someone who thinka that "MRAs are stupid" is a clever idea/nation.

[Haktiva]

Any thoughts on Male Mother Need? In simple terms it's more or less how a man's relationship with his mother forms the prototype for all future interactions with women, or at least helps determine what traits a man would find desirable in women in terms of personality. This is discussed fairly often in MGTOW circles, usually pointing out some fallacies in traditionalist arguments in doing so, usually in terms of women begin good for men.

For example, Raging Golden Eagle has discussed that some men view women as good for them because they make them take care of themselves, while at the same time shaming bachelors for being "man children" and immature for not committing to a woman(traditionalism is seen as more detrimental to men than feminism is, it would seem). The irony is quite amusing, calling a single man immature and childish for not marrying, yet the men who do so say they wouldn't be able to take care of themselves if not for their wives(or girlfriends). Who's more mature, the single guy who can take care of himself or the guy that depends on the woman to make sure he does?

There seems to be a lot of guys out there who want another mother in their wife, someone to nurture them rather than be an equal partner. Male ego is a strange thing.

[Tahar Joblis]

Men already have more rights than women. What's wrong with changing that around temporarily, in the name of feminism, to give them a taste of their own medicine? Nonetheless, to taste equality, one must be oppressed first. It's time for men to be.

What you have unwittingly stumbled across is the misleading use of the term 'rights' in this broader discussion. That is, only very stupid people think that men and women in the developed world (in countries like the US with more developed abortion laws) have substantively different rights. Such discrimination (i.e. substantive is an operative word) is illegal. The diacussion generally uses rights as a convenient short hand/historical legacy (like an appendix) for broader ideas relating to gender inequality. Good work.

Also, the MRM is more naive than stupid to the extent that it is not acutely aware that baggage is an issue for movements. That is, I would argue most of the issues endemic to feminism that MRAs are generally acutely aware of apply to the MRM to at least the same extent and often moreso but this tends to not be noticed. Somehow, I feel as if this is somewhat to empathetic as a criticism to be appreciated by someone who thinka that "MRAs are stupid" is a clever idea/nation.

There is a difference between de facto and de jure rights.

Parental rights, for example, exist explicitly within the legal systems of most developed countries. De jure, men have equal parental rights in many of those countries - according to the most basic legal description of those rights, anyway. However, these "rights" are undermined by a variety of discriminatory policies and practices.

There are also regulations of abortion and pregnancy almost everywhere in the developed world. Feminists see these regulations as ways in which women lack the right to bodily autonomy that men have. (Of course, every single way in which a man is permitted to exercise bodily autonomy, women are also permitted to exercise bodily autonomy; and there are regulations pertaining to medical procedures other than abortion as well.)

Speaking of the right to bodily autonomy, we can see rape also as a crime of violation of bodily autonomy. In that light, it develops that the right of men to have bodily autonomy is not protected against criminal infringement in the same way as women, due to the way in which rape is frequently defined and prosecuted.

Substantive discrimination is, in theory, illegal. This fact, however, does not imply that the legal apparatus itself does not engage in substantive discrimination; simply that it's not supposed to. Or rather, not supposed to without a good reason - the bar on substantive discrimination has a giant loophole in that if you can come up with and defend a rationale for engaging in even explicit discrimination, you can get away with discriminating.

For example, when age of consent laws that overtly discriminated between men and women were challenged in court, they were upheld on the basis of a compelling social interest (preventing teen pregnancy) that differentiated between older women taking advantage of young men and older men taking advantage of young women. A fairly flimsy pretext, IMO, all things considered - but one that courts were willing to defend, and one which said that young women could have legal protections that young men lacked.

I do not think that only very stupid people believe that men and women have different rights in the developed world. There is a perfectly reasonable case to be made on each of the three to five sides of the argument that is, when fully and completely developed, something that takes a person of merely average intelligence a non-trivial amount of effort to thoroughly grasp and compare.

[Tahar Joblis]

Any thoughts on Male Mother Need? In simple terms it's more or less how a man's relationship with his mother forms the prototype for all future interactions with women, or at least helps determine what traits a man would find desirable in women in terms of personality. This is discussed fairly often in MGTOW circles, usually pointing out some fallacies in traditionalist arguments in doing so, usually in terms of women begin good for men.

For example, Raging Golden Eagle has discussed that some men view women as good for them because they make them take care of themselves, while at the same time shaming bachelors for being "man children" and immature for not committing to a woman(traditionalism is seen as more detrimental to men than feminism is, it would seem). The irony is quite amusing, calling a single man immature and childish for not marrying, yet the men who do so say they wouldn't be able to take care of themselves if not for their wives(or girlfriends). Who's more mature, the single guy who can take care of himself or the guy that depends on the woman to make sure he does?

There seems to be a lot of guys out there who want another mother in their wife, someone to nurture them rather than be an equal partner. Male ego is a strange thing.

That sounds like a fresh recycling of Freud.

It is true that transference is a real thing; but it is not so cut and dried as a universal Oedipal template.

[Haktiva]

Any thoughts on Male Mother Need? In simple terms it's more or less how a man's relationship with his mother forms the prototype for all future interactions with women, or at least helps determine what traits a man would find desirable in women in terms of personality. This is discussed fairly often in MGTOW circles, usually pointing out some fallacies in traditionalist arguments in doing so, usually in terms of women begin good for men.

For example, Raging Golden Eagle has discussed that some men view women as good for them because they make them take care of themselves, while at the same time shaming bachelors for being "man children" and immature for not committing to a woman(traditionalism is seen as more detrimental to men than feminism is, it would seem). The irony is quite amusing, calling a single man immature and childish for not marrying, yet the men who do so say they wouldn't be able to take care of themselves if not for their wives(or girlfriends). Who's more mature, the single guy who can take care of himself or the guy that depends on the woman to make sure he does?

There seems to be a lot of guys out there who want another mother in their wife, someone to nurture them rather than be an equal partner. Male ego is a strange thing.

That sounds like a fresh recycling of Freud.

It is true that transference is a real thing; but it is not so cut and dried as a universal Oedipal template.

Indeed

[Ashkera]

Men already have more rights than women. What's wrong with changing that around temporarily, in the name of feminism, to give them a taste of their own medicine? Nonetheless, to taste equality, one must be oppressed first. It's time for men to be.

> assuming the men that would bear the brunt of the attack would be the same ones that caused problems

> punishing living people for the actions of dead people against other dead people

> thinking of all men as a homogenous hivemind blob AGAIN

> punishing people for the actions of others that they don't actually control

> thinking that being "oppressed" necessarily builds solidarity with other "oppressed" groups

> assuming men would just take this sitting down and not decide to more permanently put those responsible "in their place", what with gender relations already as bad as they are

The irony of the username is astounding. Not sure if troll.

[Hirota]

The account has been banned, so lets not dwell on it's irrelevance any further. If the person that created this puppet account wants to have a sensible discussion then we should be happy to participate, but in the meantime, don't fall for the flamebaity username.

And here I am making said mountain higher in hope that next time the mature methods of Hirota are followed.

If you are calling me mature you clearly don't know me that well

[Kelinfort]

Any thoughts on Male Mother Need? In simple terms it's more or less how a man's relationship with his mother forms the prototype for all future interactions with women, or at least helps determine what traits a man would find desirable in women in terms of personality. This is discussed fairly often in MGTOW circles, usually pointing out some fallacies in traditionalist arguments in doing so, usually in terms of women begin good for men.

For example, Raging Golden Eagle has discussed that some men view women as good for them because they make them take care of themselves, while at the same time shaming bachelors for being "man children" and immature for not committing to a woman(traditionalism is seen as more detrimental to men than feminism is, it would seem). The irony is quite amusing, calling a single man immature and childish for not marrying, yet the men who do so say they wouldn't be able to take care of themselves if not for their wives(or girlfriends). Who's more mature, the single guy who can take care of himself or the guy that depends on the woman to make sure he does?

There seems to be a lot of guys out there who want another mother in their wife, someone to nurture them rather than be an equal partner. Male ego is a strange thing.

Total bullshit based on antiquated Freudian psychology.

[Ashkera]

The account has been banned, so lets not dwell on it's irrelevance any further. If the person that created this puppet account wants to have a sensible discussion then we should be happy to participate, but in the meantime, don't fall for the flamebaity username.

I just wanted to address it because I've seen that "women should be in charge for revenge" viewpoint before elsewhere, and I bet some people in this forum secretly hold it. I wanted to point the number of ways its implicit assumptions don't make any sense.

I wasn't actually angry, I just figured it was a good time to headshot that recurring dumb argument.

[Ostroeuropa]

I go away from two days and avoid a shitstorm. It's my lucky week I guess, though I did witness some things that will remain with and horrify me to the grave, so i'm not so sure. Horrors abound when you go drinking with one of Those Friends. Is there anything worth going back through the last 10 pages for, or will it all be shit?

Any thoughts on Male Mother Need? In simple terms it's more or less how a man's relationship with his mother forms the prototype for all future interactions with women, or at least helps determine what traits a man would find desirable in women in terms of personality. This is discussed fairly often in MGTOW circles, usually pointing out some fallacies in traditionalist arguments in doing so, usually in terms of women begin good for men.

For example, Raging Golden Eagle has discussed that some men view women as good for them because they make them take care of themselves, while at the same time shaming bachelors for being "man children" and immature for not committing to a woman(traditionalism is seen as more detrimental to men than feminism is, it would seem). The irony is quite amusing, calling a single man immature and childish for not marrying, yet the men who do so say they wouldn't be able to take care of themselves if not for their wives(or girlfriends). Who's more mature, the single guy who can take care of himself or the guy that depends on the woman to make sure he does?

There seems to be a lot of guys out there who want another mother in their wife, someone to nurture them rather than be an equal partner. Male ego is a strange thing.

Total bullshit based on antiquated Freudian psychology.

Yeh pretty much. It's narratively appealing, like a lot of freuds work. But it's not actually true.

Same as it's narratively appealing that we're the centre of the universe and the sun goes round us.

[Ostroeuropa]

Oh, and about gays and indoctrination. My Two Cents:

I think everyone is bisexual, and varying degrees of repressed. Sue me.

My reasoning for thinking this is that the whole idea of teh gayness being bad pretty much only comes around into some european cultures with the rise of christianity. In fact the entire notion of a homosexual is kind of a recent thing in historical terms.
Prior to that it was considered normal in some cultures to fuck the same sex, and eventually marry the opposite. (Celts.)

So when these people say "You're indoctrinating people into gayness!"
No. We're undoing the indoctrination that arose due to monotheism that leads to people repressing their sexuality.

"You must not fuck the same sex." <-Indoctrination
"It's actually fine, do whatever you want to do." <-Is not a form of indoctrination. You can't give an open choice to people then claim they're indoctrinated, that's ridiculous. Indoctrinated into what. Not fucking the same sex unless they want to? The horror.

I think the gay identity arose due to repression and oppression of sexuality. I think had the monotheisms left well enough alone we'd lack a real concept of a gay person or a straight person.

People might tend one way or the other, but broadly people would be bisexual. I don't think we'll return to that though. I think now that the gay identity has arisen, it's probably here to stay.

I had an interesting conversation with a religious person about the whole leviticus bit, by the way, that actually segues into mens rights.

In a lot of cultures that had an anti-gay streak (And even in some today, Russia for example.) being the "Bottom" is the gay bit. Being the "top" is not. In some ancient cultures this was a war-rape kind of thing, thralls and slaves too, captured ones especially.
Specifically, note that leviticus says "Lie with another man as he would a woman" or whatever.
It doesn't condemn the bottom gay, but the top instead.

He was of the opinion that the passage is a condemnation of rape of men by other men. I thought it was interesting apologism at least, and some decent gymnastics.

[Ashkera]

I think everyone is bisexual, and varying degrees of repressed. Sue me.

I'm going to guess you're bisexual or pansexual here, since those are the people I've most encountered with this viewpoint.

No. Some people really are just plain ol' straight or gay. They tried that tango and they didn't like it, so "they're just repressed" doesn't make sense. They were already not-repressed enough to give it a shot.

I haven't tried the other side of the fence, but seeing someone of the same sex is about as appealing as a box of rocks. No lust, no disgust, just plain old nothin'. And there was a time in my life when playing for both teams would have made my life a LOT easier.

There are probably secret bisexual men loose in the population right now, but definitely not all of them.

[Autonomous Titoists]

Oh, and about gays and indoctrination. My Two Cents:

I think everyone is bisexual, and varying degrees of repressed. Sue me.

My reasoning for thinking this is that the whole idea of teh gayness being bad pretty much only comes around into some european cultures with the rise of christianity. In fact the entire notion of a homosexual is kind of a recent thing in historical terms.
Prior to that it was considered normal in some cultures to fuck the same sex, and eventually marry the opposite. (Celts.)

So when these people say "You're indoctrinating people into gayness!"
No. We're undoing the indoctrination that arose due to monotheism that leads to people repressing their sexuality.

"You must not fuck the same sex." <-Indoctrination
"It's actually fine, do whatever you want to do." <-Is not a form of indoctrination. You can't give an open choice to people then claim they're indoctrinated, that's ridiculous. Indoctrinated into what. Not fucking the same sex unless they want to? The horror.

I think the gay identity arose due to repression and oppression of sexuality. I think had the monotheisms left well enough alone we'd lack a real concept of a gay person or a straight person.

People might tend one way or the other, but broadly people would be bisexual. I don't think we'll return to that though. I think now that the gay identity has arisen, it's probably here to stay.

I had an interesting conversation with a religious person about the whole leviticus bit, by the way, that actually segues into mens rights.

In a lot of cultures that had an anti-gay streak (And even in some today, Russia for example.) being the "Bottom" is the gay bit. Being the "top" is not. In some ancient cultures this was a war-rape kind of thing, thralls and slaves too, captured ones especially.
Specifically, note that leviticus says "Lie with another man as he would a woman" or whatever.
It doesn't condemn the bottom gay, but the top instead.

He was of the opinion that the passage is a condemnation of rape of men by other men. I thought it was interesting apologism at least, and some decent gymnastics.

The part about indoctrination made my day.

[Ostroeuropa]

I think everyone is bisexual, and varying degrees of repressed. Sue me.

I'm going to guess you're bisexual or pansexual here, since those are the people I've most encountered with this viewpoint.

No. Some people really are just plain ol' straight or gay. They tried that tango and they didn't like it, so "they're just repressed" doesn't make sense. They were already not-repressed enough to give it a shot.

I haven't tried the other side of the fence, but seeing someone of the same sex is about as appealing as a box of rocks. No lust, no disgust, just plain old nothin'. And there was a time in my life when playing for both teams would have made my life a LOT easier.

There are probably secret bisexual men loose in the population right now, but definitely not all of them.

Yeh i'm bisexual. I don't often voice this opinion, because I can see how it would be irritating for people if it was wrong. I don't really know of any solid way to prove it either way conclusively.

[Cannabis Islands]

I'm going to guess you're bisexual or pansexual here, since those are the people I've most encountered with this viewpoint.

No. Some people really are just plain ol' straight or gay. They tried that tango and they didn't like it, so "they're just repressed" doesn't make sense. They were already not-repressed enough to give it a shot.

I haven't tried the other side of the fence, but seeing someone of the same sex is about as appealing as a box of rocks. No lust, no disgust, just plain old nothin'. And there was a time in my life when playing for both teams would have made my life a LOT easier.

There are probably secret bisexual men loose in the population right now, but definitely not all of them.

I'm gay and I really I'm not attracted to vagina...not even a little..

Yeh i'm bisexual. I don't often voice this opinion, because I can see how it would be irritating for people if it was wrong. I don't really know of any solid way to prove it either way conclusively.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm gay and I really I'm not attracted to vagina...not even a little..

Yeh i'm bisexual. I don't often voice this opinion, because I can see how it would be irritating for people if it was wrong. I don't really know of any solid way to prove it either way conclusively.

Fair enough, but how would you explain cultures such as the celts then?

http://www.ivargault.com/kelterne/celts.html (search homosexual.)

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/inde ... 844AA0zULL

(I mean, there's multiple sources for it. Celts + homosexuality.)

I suppose you could put it down to classical historians being shit and homophobic about the enemy perhaps.
Or, that it actually is possible to indoctrinate people into having sex with the same sex.

[Cankristia]

Fair enough, but how would you explain cultures such as the celts then?

http://www.ivargault.com/kelterne/celts.html (search homosexual.)

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/inde ... 844AA0zULL

(I mean, there's multiple sources for it. Celts + homosexuality.)

I suppose you could put it down to classical historians being shit and homophobic about the enemy perhaps.
Or, that it actually is possible to indoctrinate people into having sex with the same sex.

Even if it is possible it's not some terrible thing.

[Ostroeuropa]

Fair enough, but how would you explain cultures such as the celts then?

http://www.ivargault.com/kelterne/celts.html (search homosexual.)

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/inde ... 844AA0zULL

(I mean, there's multiple sources for it. Celts + homosexuality.)

I suppose you could put it down to classical historians being shit and homophobic about the enemy perhaps.
Or, that it actually is possible to indoctrinate people into having sex with the same sex.

Even if it is possible it's not some terrible thing.

I agree it's not terrible, even if so, provided the consent is genuine.
Though, at that point, we might be stuck when trying to come up with an argument why trying to indoctrinate people into straight sex is wrong.
Best to just do nothing and say it's all acceptable.

[Cannabis Islands]

Fair enough, but how would you explain cultures such as the celts then?

http://www.ivargault.com/kelterne/celts.html (search homosexual.)

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/inde ... 844AA0zULL

(I mean, there's multiple sources for it. Celts + homosexuality.)

I suppose you could put it down to classical historians being shit and homophobic about the enemy perhaps.
Or, that it actually is possible to indoctrinate people into having sex with the same sex.

I believe people are born with their sexual orientation. I also grew up in a environment hostile towards male homosexuality.

[Ostroeuropa]

Fair enough, but how would you explain cultures such as the celts then?

http://www.ivargault.com/kelterne/celts.html (search homosexual.)

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/inde ... 844AA0zULL

(I mean, there's multiple sources for it. Celts + homosexuality.)

I suppose you could put it down to classical historians being shit and homophobic about the enemy perhaps.
Or, that it actually is possible to indoctrinate people into having sex with the same sex.

I believe people are born with their sexual orientation. I also grew up in a environment hostile towards male homosexuality.

I'm really not convinced of that, but I think we should probably point out that there is no scientific consensus as of yet on any of this.
I'm sorry to hear about your upbringing though, that must have been difficult. Did it impact your identity as a man and your feelings of masculinity at all? Or was it not related to that in terms of how you felt/received the hostility? Just to drag the thread back to the topic.

[Cannabis Islands]

I believe people are born with their sexual orientation. I also grew up in a environment hostile towards male homosexuality.

I'm really not convinced of that, but I think we should probably point out that there is no scientific consensus as of yet on any of this.
I'm sorry to hear about your upbringing though, that must have been difficult. Did it impact your identity as a man and your feelings of masculinity at all? Or was it not related to that in terms of how you felt/received the hostility? Just to drag the thread back to the topic.

I mean there was this idea that a man had to be heterosexual to be a "real man".

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm really not convinced of that, but I think we should probably point out that there is no scientific consensus as of yet on any of this.
I'm sorry to hear about your upbringing though, that must have been difficult. Did it impact your identity as a man and your feelings of masculinity at all? Or was it not related to that in terms of how you felt/received the hostility? Just to drag the thread back to the topic.

I mean there was this idea that a man had to be heterosexual to be a "real man".

Did it ever worry you, or did you just think it was bollocks?

[Cankristia]

Even if it is possible it's not some terrible thing.

I agree it's not terrible, even if so, provided the consent is genuine.
Though, at that point, we might be stuck when trying to come up with an argument why trying to indoctrinate people into straight sex is wrong.
Best to just do nothing and say it's all acceptable.

Well, I think that the problem here is that when we speak of a subject like "indoctrination' which we all agree is wrong, there's a hidden implication that indoctrination actually happens.

In the Modern Western world, this hidden implication is that homosexual parenting and homosexuality in public is tantamount to "indoctrination", which isn't actually the case.