Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why it's hard to support men's rights

Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 4:44:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's hard to support men's rights. Men commit suicide a lot, for example. It's horrible. We should talk about it. I WANT to. But I can't because before I even start it's feminism blah blah feminists don't care about men they're hypocrites etc.

Why are feminists the enemy of supporting men's rights? I don't think it's a zero sum game, or it shouldn't be anyway.

I think it's because in the past women really did support men - and everyone - a lot more. Homelessness has increased a lot in the past few decades even as we've gotten wealthier, for example, and that's because women aren't at home supporting and caring for the family and communities as they used to. The consequences are severe and nobody has managed to fill the gap. So lets spend more money on homelessness and on preventing men from killing themselves etc.

Of course those things matter.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 5:58:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Do you have any statistics to support an increase in the rate of homelessness or male suicide?

Men don't need any more rights. Neither do women. The West is a fvcking utopia; we're just too lazy to make the most of it.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 10:35:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 4:44:26 AM, Garbanza wrote:

Garbanza: It's hard to support men's rights. Men commit suicide a lot, for example. It's horrible. We should talk about it.

The Fool: They are not hard to support. People are just indifferent and feminist only bring it up to avoid contradiction and the lose of monopoly over gender issues.

Garbanza: I WANT to.

The Fool: Okay then sign up right here, and make a donation.
<(8D)

http://www.change.org...

Just make sure to take a screen shot of your signing up.
<(89)

Garbanza: But I can't because before I even start it's feminism blah blah feminists don't care about men they're hypocrites etc.

http://www.change.org...

The Fool: <(XD)

Aside from that we generally don't want feminist to represent our issues, because of the inherent bias in feminism, Feminist theory and the many feminist who hate men within it.

And we reject the dishonest tactics in feminism. The false information. the shaming, false statistics, the socializing, the 40 years of male bashing that is still goes on in almost ever Ad. And the fact that Feminist only care as to avoid contradiction as losing hegemony. And so therefore haven't earned the trust and/or respect to represent them.

Garbanza:: Why are feminists the enemy of supporting men's rights?

The Fool: Anybody can support our rights, by signing up and donating, We just don't want you to REPRESENT us or our rights against our will.

Garbanza: I don't think it's a zero sum game, or it shouldn't be anyway.

The Fool: It's not.

Garbanza:: I think it's because in the past women really did support men - and everyone - a lot more.

The Fool: Really with War, money, technology, construction, safety, innovation, how exactly were woman supporting really. If as Feminist claim they didn't have anything to support us with.

Garbanza: Homelessness has increased a lot in the past few decades even as we've gotten wealthier, for example, and that's because women aren't at home supporting and caring for the family and communities as they used to. The consequences are severe and nobody has managed to fill the gap.

The Fool: Lol. No its called capitalism, and spending social resources, and creating social programs and shelters for woman only. Therefore the rate of homeless men on the streets is a direct outcome Capitalism and Feminism,

Garbanza: So lets spend more money on homelessness and on preventing men from killing themselves etc.

The Fool: Well to help with suicide Feminist could stop the MALE BASHING and all the propaganda which uses male bashing to get its message across. And to help with the homeless, well you can make your donation, and support Mens and boys groups rather then only woman and girls groups. This way you know your money and support will be going to people who are more dedicated to these issues.

Against The Ideologist

Here's a start
http://www.change.org...
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 2:19:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 4:44:26 AM, Garbanza wrote:
It's hard to support men's rights.

Sarcasm? o.O

Men commit suicide a lot, for example.

It's true, but Women attempt suicide more... not that either of those things are evidence of men/women being denied their rights.

Why are feminists the enemy of supporting men's rights? I don't think it's a zero sum game, or it shouldn't be anyway.

It's not, and in supporting the equal rights of men and women I would consider myself a feminist.

If you were to look to try to Impose Equality in complex areas like employment you may very well have to violate the equality of rights among the sexes.. Same as you'd have to violate the rights of women to impose equal representation of men in colleges these days.

but that's not Necessarily tied to Feminism... (though admittedly lots of feminists seem to espouse such)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 2:32:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 2:19:29 PM, mortsdor wrote:
At 10/27/2014 4:44:26 AM, Garbanza wrote:
It's hard to support men's rights.

Sarcasm? o.O

Men commit suicide a lot, for example.

It's true, but Women attempt suicide more... not that either of those things are evidence of men/women being denied their rights.

Why are feminists the enemy of supporting men's rights? I don't think it's a zero sum game, or it shouldn't be anyway.

It's not, and in supporting the equal rights of men and women I would consider myself a feminist.

The Fool: Do support the Right for Men to have their "own voice" and own representation for their own issues and rights, outside of the assumptions of Feminist Theory?


If you were to look to try to Impose Equality in complex areas like employment you may very well have to violate the equality of rights among the sexes.. Same as you'd have to violate the rights of women to impose equal representation of men in colleges these days.

but that's not Necessarily tied to Feminism... (though admittedly lots of feminists seem to espouse such)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 2:43:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Fool: Because equality demands that men have a representation on gender issues that is equally dedicated to them as feminism is to woman Right?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 3:12:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 5:58:09 AM, apb4y wrote:
Garbanza: Do you have any statistics to support an increase in the rate of homelessness or male suicide?

apb4y : Men don't need any more rights. Neither do women. The West is a fvcking utopia; we're just too lazy to make the most of it.

The Fool: You don't find that the laws are slowly getting more and more restrictive against men and are putting more responsibility on men.

Do you think a man simply looking at a woman should be considered "Stare Rape".

Or that if a man and woman get too drunk to legally consent and both have sex, that the man should be charged with rape anyway, even though they are both just as guilty?

Its not just about "getting" rights but protecting the ones we even have.

If there is no counter weight --><-- to feminism, they are just going to keep pushing and pushing as far as they can, making up new theories and constructs as they go along, because Equality for them means they are out of a Job.

It's like being prosecuted without a defense attorney. And letting Feminist represent your Rights is like letting yourprosecutors BE your defense attorney.

Does that make any sense?

Is that really what you want??

If you can see what they are trying to do and care to help stop it, it would take only a few moments to fill-out this very brief UN petition.

http://www.change.org...

Against The Ideologist
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 3:40:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 2:43:20 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Because equality demands that men have a representation on gender issues that is equally dedicated to them as feminism is to woman Right?

I suppose I'd describe myself as a Masculinist then too!

lol or just find a better title I suppose 8)
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 3:43:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 2:32:57 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
It's not, and in supporting the equal rights of men and women I would consider myself a feminist.

The Fool: Do support the Right for Men to have their "own voice" and own representation for their own issues and rights, outside of the assumptions of Feminist Theory?


If you were to look to try to Impose Equality in complex areas like employment you may very well have to violate the equality of rights among the sexes.. Same as you'd have to violate the rights of women to impose equal representation of men in colleges these days.

but that's not Necessarily tied to Feminism... (though admittedly lots of feminists seem to espouse such)

what are the assumptions of Feminist theory?

Also though, As I alluded to in response to your other post... I don't think the best term to describe me is Feminist, as then I'd have to describe as Masculinist Too!

Though I most certainly would be in support of equal rights between the sexes.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 3:43:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 2:32:57 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
It's not, and in supporting the equal rights of men and women I would consider myself a feminist.

The Fool: Do support the Right for Men to have their "own voice" and own representation for their own issues and rights, outside of the assumptions of Feminist Theory?


If you were to look to try to Impose Equality in complex areas like employment you may very well have to violate the equality of rights among the sexes.. Same as you'd have to violate the rights of women to impose equal representation of men in colleges these days.

but that's not Necessarily tied to Feminism... (though admittedly lots of feminists seem to espouse such)

what are the assumptions of Feminist theory?

Also though, As I alluded to in response to your other post... I don't think the best term to describe me is Feminist, as then I'd have to describe as Masculinist Too!

Though I most certainly would be in support of equal rights between the sexes.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 5:53:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 3:43:06 PM, mortsdor wrote:
At 10/27/2014 2:32:57 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
It's not, and in supporting the equal rights of men and women I would consider myself a feminist.

The Fool: Do support the Right for Men to have their "own voice" and own representation for their own issues and rights, outside of the assumptions of Feminist Theory?


If you were to look to try to Impose Equality in complex areas like employment you may very well have to violate the equality of rights among the sexes.. Same as you'd have to violate the rights of women to impose equal representation of men in colleges these days.

but that's not Necessarily tied to Feminism... (though admittedly lots of feminists seem to espouse such)


mortsdor : what are the assumptions of Feminist theory?

Well there are way to many to mention here, but the problem is many presume some guilt or inherent evil on the part of men.

Patriarchy Theory
Such as the myth that there was a time when gender roles were equal, and men via patriarchy out of no-where, for no reason, but on every place on the planet, (even cultures completely isolated on another) decided create a system in our own favor to intentionally oppress woman for the sake of power and control.

Feminist Utopia
This is really their explanation for how we have such deeply ingrained sexist gender roles, where utopia can only be reached when this is completely undone, and we do everything the same. And the assumption that all psychological differences are simply do to this socialization process and has nothing to do, with what actual Natural Science demonstrates with evolution and biological differences.

No Voice for Men
From these assumption they declare that "men" don't deserve or even need their own voice of representation on gender issues because society is already men's voice. But this of course is not really "fair" because its not actually based on any fact, and societies voice is actually mixed and does not represent an organized voice with a particular focus on men's issues, as feminism is on woman's issues.

The Monopoly
Feminist never previously mentioned men's issues until of course there started to emerge Men and Boy's rights groups fighting for these concerns, and picking apart Feminist Theory. But now that we are making noise they are afraid of losing their monopoly on gender issues, especially in academic circles were they have complete control over the studies, what the population can think, and what is considered valid.

It is necessary for them to keep this monopoly because MRA's don't want work under the assumption of Feminist theory, where men are framed with some type of Eternal Sin, thus born guilty, or that there is something inherently wrong with being a masculine men. That woman need to be "saved" and "men" need to somehow be cleansed and reconditioned to feminist standards until we can be equally worthy human beings again.

The Repackaging
So now they are trying to re-brand themselves, as representing issues for both genders, against our will, and in knowledge that Feminism concern is bias toward Woman issues. This is not to help Men and/or Boys at all, but to simply mention that they recognize our issues, (Just NOW!, that we are actually HUMAN TOO!) , as to put them on hold, use men as "tools" for there own personal interests, (He-for-She campaign) and suffocate support for Men and Boy's having their own independent voice on their own issues and own concerns, outside of the Feminist lens.

Because Feminism is such a well established ideology, and that people are general more receptive to the suffering of woman and children then they are of men, its impossible to compete through public advertisement. So they are really capitalizing on advertisement propaganda, while we have to rely on reason and facts.

As I mentioned earlier letting Feminist represent Men's Rights is like letting the prosecution BE the defense attorney, or visa-visa, at the same time. It doesn't get anymore of a corrupt system then that.

The only way to fair gender representation is to have groups equally dedicated to each other others issues not one that assumes the issues of one gender more crucial or important then the other. That's not equality. The very fact that feminist don't want to allow men to have their own voice should be suspicious enough. If your are about equal rights then be an "egalitarian". Listen equally to Feminist and MRA positions and arguments, and judge each topic on its own accord.

If feminist were REALLY serious about gender equality, they would change their name and allow men to have their own representation, out side of the Feminist Lens. Not even most feminist really think the Feminist movement is equally concerned with Men's issues. It's just power political propaganda to control the minds of the masses.

Mortsdor : Also though, As I alluded to in response to your other post... I don't think the best term to describe me is Feminist, as then I'd have to describe as Masculinist Too!

The Fool: For the record. No body in the Men Right Movements(MRM) uses the term Masculinist.

Why?

Because Masculinism, is an "ISM" and so presumes some underlying foundation like "Feminist Theory", which govern our views.

Men Rights Activist (MRA'S) work from a context to context bases, and counter-argue the assumptions of Feminist Theory. Our strength lies in rational, moral and empirical justification, rather then appeals to emotion, and long inference ladders of wild un-falsifiable speculation.

mortsdor : Though I most certainly would be in support of equal rights between the sexes.

Against The Ideologist

If you do it would help if you can sign this petition advocating a bureau in the UN to Protect Men's and Boy's right, as there is currently only one for Woman and Girls. It takes less then a minute.

Thanks Anyway. And Cheers.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Material_Girl
Posts: 264
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 5:55:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I do support men's rights because I support equality, not some matriarchal dictatorship as people make out radical feminists to support. Feminists only have a problem with men's rights, and the movement calling itself the men's rights movement, because of the simple fact that women are more oppressed than men and require more boosting to achieve a state of gender equality than men do. "Men's rights," and also "gender egalitarianism," or "humanism," implies otherwise.
http://commissaress.wordpress.com...

Political Compass
Economic Left: -10.00
Social Libertarian: -7.13

Yes, I am an evil godless commie.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 6:26:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 3:12:38 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/27/2014 5:58:09 AM, apb4y wrote:
Garbanza: Do you have any statistics to support an increase in the rate of homelessness or male suicide?

apb4y : Men don't need any more rights. Neither do women. The West is a fvcking utopia; we're just too lazy to make the most of it.

The Fool: You don't find that the laws are slowly getting more and more restrictive against men and are putting more responsibility on men.

No, I think the laws are as ineffective as always. Feminists can determine the rules of political correctness, but their efforts to change the legal system are wasted.

Do you think a man simply looking at a woman should be considered "Stare Rape".

Extremist crazies aside, nobody is advocating that.

Or that if a man and woman get too drunk to legally consent and both have sex, that the man should be charged with rape anyway, even though they are both just as guilty?

That wouldn't hold up in court.

Its not just about "getting" rights but protecting the ones we even have.

This is pure fear-mongering.

If there is no counter weight --><-- to feminism, they are just going to keep pushing and pushing as far as they can, making up new theories and constructs as they go along, because Equality for them means they are out of a Job.

The solution to Feminism is for more people to objectively examine their claims, and come to the realisation that they're bullshiit. Diving into the gender war just turns people against you.

It's like being prosecuted without a defense attorney. And letting Feminist represent your Rights is like letting yourprosecutors BE your defense attorney.

This is victim mentality.

If you can see what they are trying to do and care to help stop it, it would take only a few moments to fill-out this very brief UN petition.

I don't sign petitions, no matter what they're advocating.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 6:50:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 6:26:35 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/27/2014 3:12:38 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/27/2014 5:58:09 AM, apb4y wrote:
Garbanza: Do you have any statistics to support an increase in the rate of homelessness or male suicide?

apb4y : Men don't need any more rights. Neither do women. The West is a fvcking utopia; we're just too lazy to make the most of it.

The Fool: You don't find that the laws are slowly getting more and more restrictive against men and are putting more responsibility on men.

apb4y : No, I think the laws are as ineffective as always. Feminists can determine the rules of political correctness, but their efforts to change the legal system are wasted.

The Fool: The definition of rape and or sexual Harassment are their Definitions, the marriage contract has been changed to be disadvantaged to men. That's their doing. Not that there is anything wrong with then but it's wise to have somebody at least making sure they don't over step their bounds.

Did you know that men on average get 30% to 40% Longer jail sentences for the same crimes as woman?

Do you think a man simply looking at a woman should be considered "Stare Rape".

apb4y : Extremist crazies aside, nobody is advocating that.

The Fool: "rape culture" was a crazy construct, 20 years ago.
http://i.imgur.com...

E.g.
"The term rape culture was first used in the 1970s by"second wave feminists, and was applied to contemporary American culture as a whole."

"The first published use of the term appears to have been in 1974 in Rape: The First Sourcebook for Women, edited by Noreen Connell and Cassandra Wilson for the New York ------->>Radical Feminists.<<<----"

http://en.wikipedia.org...


Or that if a man and woman get too drunk to legally consent and both have sex, that the man should be charged with rape anyway, even though they are both just as guilty?

apb4y :: That wouldn't hold up in court.

The Fool: Its now the law in Canada an some states. That is the evidence.

Its not just about "getting" rights but protecting the ones we even have.

This is pure fear-mongering.

If there is no counter weight --><-- to feminism, they are just going to keep pushing and pushing as far as they can, making up new theories and constructs as they go along, because Equality for them means they are out of a Job.

apb4y :: The solution to Feminism is for more people to objectively examine their claims, and come to the realisation that they're bullshiit. Diving into the gender war just turns people against you.

The Fool: The problem is that appealing to pity and emotions does nonetheless have a major influence on policies. That's partially why woman get shorter sentences. Because we are more sympathetic to woman and children over men.

It's like being prosecuted without a defense attorney. And letting Feminist represent your Rights is like letting yourprosecutors BE your defense attorney.

apb4y :: This is victim mentality.

The Fool: That's the methods they use,and it obviously works. But if there is no counter system, its works even MORE.

If you can see what they are trying to do and care to help stop it, it would take only a few moments to fill-out this very brief UN petition.

apb4y ::: I don't sign petitions, no matter what they're advocating.

The Fool: Far enough. But just to let you know there is Bureau in the UN which protects the Right of Women and Girls but None to protect the Rights of Men and Boys.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 7:30:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 6:50:05 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: The definition of rape and or sexual Harassment are their Definitions, the marriage contract has been changed to be disadvantaged to men. That's their doing. Not that there is anything wrong with then but it's wise to have somebody at least making sure they don't over step their bounds.

If that somebody is you, then forget it. Free thought shouldn't be policed.

Did you know that men on average get 30% to 40% Longer jail sentences for the same crimes as woman?

All that shows is that woman have nicer racks.

The Fool: "rape culture" was a crazy construct, 20 years ago.
http://i.imgur.com...

E.g.
"The term rape culture was first used in the 1970s by"second wave feminists, and was applied to contemporary American culture as a whole."

"The first published use of the term appears to have been in 1974 in Rape: The First Sourcebook for Women, edited by Noreen Connell and Cassandra Wilson for the New York ------->>Radical Feminists.<<<----"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Most people don't take "rape culture" seriously. Those people also have better things to do with their lives than discuss it.

Or that if a man and woman get too drunk to legally consent and both have sex, that the man should be charged with rape anyway, even though they are both just as guilty?

apb4y :: That wouldn't hold up in court.

The Fool: Its now the law in Canada an some states. That is the evidence.

Source?

apb4y :: The solution to Feminism is for more people to objectively examine their claims, and come to the realisation that they're bullshiit. Diving into the gender war just turns people against you.

The Fool: The problem is that appealing to pity and emotions does nonetheless have a major influence on policies. That's partially why woman get shorter sentences. Because we are more sympathetic to woman and children over men.

Politics is all about stupid people exploiting stupider people. Gotta keep 'em on the Ferris wheel to keep the money coming in.

It's like being prosecuted without a defense attorney. And letting Feminist represent your Rights is like letting yourprosecutors BE your defense attorney.

apb4y :: This is victim mentality.

The Fool: That's the methods they use,and it obviously works. But if there is no counter system, its works even MORE.

If you throw bullshiit at bullshiit, it's still bullshiit. The only way the Feminists lose their power is if we stop paying attention to them.

If you can see what they are trying to do and care to help stop it, it would take only a few moments to fill-out this very brief UN petition.

apb4y ::: I don't sign petitions, no matter what they're advocating.

The Fool: Far enough. But just to let you know there is Bureau in the UN which protects the Right of Women and Girls but None to protect the Rights of Men and Boys.

Count the fvcks I give.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 8:14:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 5:55:43 PM, Material_Girl wrote:
Material_Girl : I do support men's rights because I support equality, not some matriarchal dictatorship as people make out radical feminists to support.

The Fool: Do you support men having the Right to having their own voice for their own issues and their own concerns apart from Feminists?

As for Rad-feminist:
I think even most Feminist would agree that Radical Feminism does stereotypicaly, and perhaps even shamelessly lean in the direction matriarchal dictatorship. At 13 years I can't help but think that you not well read enough, on the general tenent's of Radical Feminism. I don't even think most Rad Feminist would openly declare themselves Radical Feminism at this day and age. . If you were older I would actually be VERY offended.

Material_Girl :Feminists only have a problem with men's rights, and the movement calling itself the men's rights movement, because of the simple fact that women are more oppressed than men and require more boosting to achieve a state of gender equality than men do.

The Fool: No, I don't think its just about names. They are pretty against "men" having their own voice apart from the assumptions of feminist theory. That's why Feminism is trying to re-brand itself as advocating for both Men's and Woman's issues. They are afraid of an opposition who could possibly point out all the flaws in feminist research and theory.

Moreover, most MRA's probably wouldn't agree that its a fact that woman are, or have been INTENTIONALLY oppressed(and those not oppressed) for being woman, rather then systematically and for the most part out of practicality, via Biology and lack of Technology, then simply to hold woman down. (down from what?))

They would generally agree that woman "now", because of technological, social, and political evolution ought have equal opportunities to men and not be judged simply by their sex. But that the sum total of men generally have a better life quality then the sum total of woman, is perhaps mistaken. Evidence for this is that life stress reduces men's life expectancy more then woman, and are more likely to actually kill themselves.

Its easy to forget that for most of history and in capitalist societies its only a small minority of men who have life pretty much made. The rest have to bust there as-s like every one else, and there has always been more men at the "Rock bottom" end of the spectrum then woman. Feminist research is very selective an misleading. We live in a culture were Men are more likely to be a victim of violent acts especially murder, (yes often by men) but woman are encouraged to be more frightened.
<(8D)

HMM...

Material_Girl :"Men's rights," and also "gender egalitarianism," or "humanism," implies otherwise.

The Fool: Do you really think you can argue a convincing case that life quality through history, after accounting for all the variables, including war, work, risk, and responsibility, and the entire socio-economic spectrum's, including slaves and horrible deaths, has generally been better for men as appose to men?

And/or that men intentionally created a system to oppress woman, were woman were so helpless and a non-issue, they did not indirectly or directly influence the system in their favor as well?

Against The Ideologist

When one really thinks about it they begin to see that it was more different then it was necessary worse. Feminist tend to equivocate "different role"s as generally "oppressive roles." We have been taught that inequality is necessary LOW quality.

#t
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 8:40:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 8:14:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/27/2014 5:55:43 PM, Material_Girl wrote:
Material_Girl : I do support men's rights because I support equality, not some matriarchal dictatorship as people make out radical feminists to support.

The Fool: Do you support men having the Right to having their own voice for their own issues and their own concerns apart from Feminists?

As for Rad-feminist:
I think even most Feminist would agree that Radical Feminism does stereotypicaly, and perhaps even shamelessly lean in the direction matriarchal dictatorship. At 13 years I can't help but think that you not well read enough, on the general tenent's of Radical Feminism. I don't even think most Rad Feminist would openly declare themselves Radical Feminism at this day and age. . If you were older I would actually be VERY offended.

Stop picking on a 13 year old. Shame on you!


Material_Girl :"Men's rights," and also "gender egalitarianism," or "humanism," implies otherwise.

The Fool: Do you really think you can argue a convincing case that life quality through history, after accounting for all the variables, including war, work, risk, and responsibility, and the entire socio-economic spectrum's, including slaves and horrible deaths, has generally been better for men as appose to men?

Against The Ideologist

How can you blame war on women. Do you think we commemorate Alexandria the Grateful or Hitler the Nazi Feminist?

Men kill men. Period.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 9:11:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 5:55:43 PM, Material_Girl wrote:
I do support men's rights because I support equality, not some matriarchal dictatorship as people make out radical feminists to support. Feminists only have a problem with men's rights, and the movement calling itself the men's rights movement, because of the simple fact that women are more oppressed than men and require more boosting to achieve a state of gender equality than men do. "Men's rights," and also "gender egalitarianism," or "humanism," implies otherwise.

Evidence for this? If only a specific race was selected to enter into the draft, clearly you would call this racist and oppressive? Why is it not sexist and oppresive when its men? And if your arguement is "because men are stronger". Will blacks are stronger than whites on average, would it be fair to select only for blacks into the military?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 9:46:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 8:40:25 PM, fazz wrote:
At 10/27/2014 8:14:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/27/2014 5:55:43 PM, Material_Girl wrote:
Material_Girl : I do support men's rights because I support equality, not some matriarchal dictatorship as people make out radical feminists to support.

The Fool: Do you support men having the Right to having their own voice for their own issues and their own concerns apart from Feminists?

As for Rad-feminist:
I think even most Feminist would agree that Radical Feminism does stereotypicaly, and perhaps even shamelessly lean in the direction matriarchal dictatorship. At 13 years I can't help but think that you not well read enough, on the general tenet's of Radical Feminism. I don't even think most Rad Feminist would openly declare themselves Radical Feminism at this day and age. . If you were older I would actually be VERY offended.

fazz : Stop picking on a 13 year old. Shame on you!

The Fool: I'm not, that's why I am not offended.


The fazz : Material_Girl :"Men's rights," and also "gender egalitarianism," or "humanism," implies otherwise.

The Fool: Do you really think you can argue a convincing case that life quality through history, after accounting for all the variables, including war, work, risk, and responsibility, and the entire socio-economic spectrum's, including slaves and horrible deaths, has generally been better for men as appose to men?

Against The Ideologist

How can you blame war on women.

The Fool: I am not blaming woman, your shamelessly strawmaning my position. Again? An your doing it on purpose to annoy me. Because I am a guy and so you feel its okay, because well, I should be able to take it. Right? Again and again and again, regardless of how stressful or hard it is for me to argue my valid and rational view, and empirically supported views without someone constantly trying to block my voice via intentional misinterpretation and harmful stigmatization. Right?

So it's okay, right? Doesn't count? Right? Especially an MRA, Right?

As for War:
Are there no woman in America who support the war in Iraq?

Do we blame all the German soldiers dragged into war or do we blame "Hitler" the influence behind it, as well.
Dude, Woman have a huge influence in every major world event either directly or indirectly.

Social interaction is not a See-saw between genders, but a very complex integrated web of passive and aggressive interaction between Wives, husbands, mothers, fathers, sisters, brother, daughters, sons, friends, community, and the greater state, and interacting states.

Each relation has different cause an effect interactions which are hardly in a vacuum.

E.g 1
A mans interaction with a sister, a mother, a daughter and a woman of similar status from another family are very different, and intern effect other events differently. Its not one gender pressing down on another in the same direction all the time. Virtually no father ever intentionally tries to hold down, or oppress their daughter, that does. The one way model it stupidly over simplified for Ideological convenience.

E.g 2
Similarly in the past the wife or daughter of a king has status over all other men, of any other family. And these woman were not only pampered but have status over all men and woman of the rest of the population. Often these kings have harems of woman who are all pretty much set for, while the men who make up most of the bottom have nothing. If a king or government goes to war, (extremely small population) the rest of the male population is dragged in against their to be killed and deposed at will, against their will.

Against The Ideologist

Gender relations is not a See-saw. And just because I am a man and perhaps even a little more emotionally durable its not okay to constantly insult me, or disrespect my individuality by constantly grouping me in with rapist, or murders, or war mongers, or violence against woman. Especially, since well, niether of these are actions or ideas of The Political bodies I actually support.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 10:01:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 9:46:22 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/27/2014 8:40:25 PM, fazz wrote:
At 10/27/2014 8:14:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/27/2014 5:55:43 PM, Material_Girl wrote:
Material_Girl : I do support men's rights because I support equality, not some matriarchal dictatorship as people make out radical feminists to support.

The Fool: Do you support men having the Right to having their own voice for their own issues and their own concerns apart from Feminists?

As for Rad-feminist:
I think even most Feminist would agree that Radical Feminism does stereotypicaly, and perhaps even shamelessly lean in the direction matriarchal dictatorship. At 13 years I can't help but think that you not well read enough, on the general tenet's of Radical Feminism. I don't even think most Rad Feminist would openly declare themselves Radical Feminism at this day and age. . If you were older I would actually be VERY offended.

fazz : Stop picking on a 13 year old. Shame on you!

The Fool: I'm not, that's why I am not offended.

Fair enough.

The fazz : Material_Girl :"Men's rights," and also "gender egalitarianism," or "humanism," implies otherwise.

The Fool: Do you really think you can argue a convincing case that life quality through history, after accounting for all the variables, including war, work, risk, and responsibility, and the entire socio-economic spectrum's, including slaves and horrible deaths, has generally been better for men as appose to men?

Against The Ideologist

How can you blame war on women.

The Fool: I am not blaming woman, your shamelessly strawmaning my position. Again? An your doing it on purpose to annoy me. Because I am a guy and so you feel its okay, because well, I should be able to take it. Right? Again and again and again, regardless of how stressful or hard it is for me to argue my valid and rational view, and empirically supported views without someone constantly trying to block my voice via intentional misinterpretation and harmful stigmatization. Right?

Can you PM me.

I am finding it hard due to cultural & distance to understand how a man can be stigmatized by society.

Gender relations is not a See-saw. And just because I am a man and perhaps even a little more emotionally durable its not okay to constantly insult me, or disrespect my individuality by constantly grouping me in with rapist, or murders, or war mongers, or violence against woman. Especially, since well, niether of these are actions or ideas of The Political bodies I actually support.

Agreed. I will stop the insults.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 10:06:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 9:11:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/27/2014 5:55:43 PM, Material_Girl wrote:
I do support men's rights because I support equality, not some matriarchal dictatorship as people make out radical feminists to support. Feminists only have a problem with men's rights, and the movement calling itself the men's rights movement, because of the simple fact that women are more oppressed than men and require more boosting to achieve a state of gender equality than men do. "Men's rights," and also "gender egalitarianism," or "humanism," implies otherwise.

Evidence for this? If only a specific race was selected to enter into the draft, clearly you would call this racist and oppressive? Why is it not sexist and oppresive when its men?

The darft is imposed by General and the Commander of the United States armed forces both men. It is the patriarchal-industrial complex that allows the Military to send men into their deaths willy-nilly.

And if your arguement is "because men are stronger".

fact: men are strong.

Will blacks are stronger than whites on average, would it be fair to select only for blacks into the military?

Hell no. That would be Eugenics.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 10:22:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 10:06:53 PM, fazz wrote:
At 10/27/2014 9:11:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/27/2014 5:55:43 PM, Material_Girl wrote:
I do support men's rights because I support equality, not some matriarchal dictatorship as people make out radical feminists to support. Feminists only have a problem with men's rights, and the movement calling itself the men's rights movement, because of the simple fact that women are more oppressed than men and require more boosting to achieve a state of gender equality than men do. "Men's rights," and also "gender egalitarianism," or "humanism," implies otherwise.

Evidence for this? If only a specific race was selected to enter into the draft, clearly you would call this racist and oppressive? Why is it not sexist and oppresive when its men?

The darft is imposed by General and the Commander of the United States armed forces both men. It is the patriarchal-industrial complex that allows the Military to send men into their deaths willy-nilly.

So because it was men that are doing it this means it can't be oppressive. When Africa and India were colonized, they wouldn't use white men to rule over them. Rather they'd use people from their own ethnicity who was loyal to the European rulers. Does this mean they weren't oppressed? There's also some evidence to suggest that Hitler's grandfather was jewish. Would this mean that Hitler was not oppressive to the jews? There were actually people under Hitler's high-command that had jewish ancestors.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Does this mean that they weren't oppressing jews?

And if your arguement is "because men are stronger".

fact: men are strong.

Agreed.

Will blacks are stronger than whites on average, would it be fair to select only for blacks into the military?

Hell no. That would be Eugenics.

But not racist? Also eugenics is only if policy is designed to reduce certain populations. If a policy has no intention to reduce certain populations but does, it isn't considered eugenics. Otherwise, you'd have to consider the pro-choice movement as eugenics because blacks disproportionately have abortions more than other races.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 10:59:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 10:22:16 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/27/2014 10:06:53 PM, fazz wrote:

The darft is imposed by General and the Commander of the United States armed forces both men. It is the patriarchal-industrial complex that allows the Military to send men into their deaths willy-nilly.

So because it was men that are doing it this means it can't be oppressive. When Africa and India were colonized, they wouldn't use white men to rule over them. Rather they'd use people from their own ethnicity who was loyal to the European rulers.

This is called internal orientalism. It is still prevalent today in politics under the guise of Aryan race theory.

There's also some evidence to suggest that Hitler's grandfather was jewish. Would this mean that Hitler was not oppressive to the jews? There were actually people under Hitler's high-command that had jewish ancestors.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Lol. Hitler was a self hating Jew. And Jesus was a black man according to some: http://www.theguardian.com... How does this change thing?

Discussing race in America is like trying to read Adam Smith or Ricardo in the USSR.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 11:10:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 7:30:55 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/27/2014 6:50:05 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: The definition of rape and or sexual Harassment are their Definitions, the marriage contract has been changed to be disadvantaged to men. That's their doing. Not that there is anything wrong with then but it's wise to have somebody at least making sure they don't over step their bounds.

apb4y : If that somebody is you, then forget it.

The Fool: I doubt it would be me. But, I certainly would want me.
<(89)

apb4y :Free thought shouldn't be policed.

The Fool: You right, but that exactly what they are trying to do is prevent viewpoints about gender relations other then their own.

Did you know that men on average get 30% to 40% Longer jail sentences for the same crimes as woman?

All that shows is that woman have nicer racks.

The Fool: So not a Scholarly type, I see.
<(8d)

The Fool: "rape culture" was a crazy construct, 20 years ago.
http://i.imgur.com...

E.g.
"The term rape culture was first used in the 1970s by"second wave feminists, and was applied to contemporary American culture as a whole."

"The first published use of the term appears to have been in 1974 in Rape: The First Sourcebook for Women, edited by Noreen Connell and Cassandra Wilson for the New York ------->>Radical Feminists.<<<----"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Most people don't take "rape culture" seriously. Those people also have better things to do with their lives than discuss it.

The Fool: All that matters is that those who can effect policies do. And well, they do.

Or that if a man and woman get too drunk to legally consent and both have sex, that the man should be charged with rape anyway, even though they are both just as guilty?

apb4y :: That wouldn't hold up in court.

The Fool: Its now the law in Canada an some states. That is the evidence.

Source?

The Fool: It follows logically, by the definition of rape were "Rape" is considered penetration without consent.

e.g.
In places where only penetration is "rape", and if a man and woman are too drunk to legally consent, then unless, she puts something in your "a-s-s" only the man's sexual actions are Rape actions. Thus if a woman regrets having sex and/or doesn't remember consenting, then well your fvcked.

Some places are now requiring a verbal "yes" which of course a man can't even proof unless he records it.

http://www.latimes.com...

They are also pushing to have the policies so to simply believe any woman who says they are raped and its up to the man to prove hes not guilty rather then innocent until proven guilty.

https://www.youtube.com...

This is a violation of due process, and so human rights, and is now the par in some universities.

https://www.youtube.com...

The point is that without fair gender representation, the general policies get more restrictive and more responsibility gets gets force on Men an Boys, for the same actions, and there is no PROTECTING of your rights.

apb4y ::: I don't sign petitions, no matter what they're advocating.

The Fool: Far enough. But just to let you know there is Bureau in the UN which protects the Right of Women and Girls but None to protect the Rights of Men and Boys.

Count the fvcks I give.

The Fool: 1?
<(8D)

Against The Ideologist

I am just supporting my claims.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 11:11:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 10:59:22 PM, fazz wrote:
At 10/27/2014 10:22:16 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/27/2014 10:06:53 PM, fazz wrote:

The darft is imposed by General and the Commander of the United States armed forces both men. It is the patriarchal-industrial complex that allows the Military to send men into their deaths willy-nilly.

So because it was men that are doing it this means it can't be oppressive. When Africa and India were colonized, they wouldn't use white men to rule over them. Rather they'd use people from their own ethnicity who was loyal to the European rulers.

This is called internal orientalism. It is still prevalent today in politics under the guise of Aryan race theory.

But again, no chance that men aren't influenced by others to make decisions that are harmful to other men? Why is one theory true but not the other?

There's also some evidence to suggest that Hitler's grandfather was jewish. Would this mean that Hitler was not oppressive to the jews? There were actually people under Hitler's high-command that had jewish ancestors.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Lol. Hitler was a self hating Jew. And Jesus was a black man according to some: http://www.theguardian.com... How does this change thing?

Discussing race in America is like trying to read Adam Smith or Ricardo in the USSR.

Agan, men in charge can't be self-hatng men? This can only apply to other categories.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 11:17:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 11:11:09 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/27/2014 10:59:22 PM, fazz wrote:
At 10/27/2014 10:22:16 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/27/2014 10:06:53 PM, fazz wrote:

The darft is imposed by General and the Commander of the United States armed forces both men. It is the patriarchal-industrial complex that allows the Military to send men into their deaths willy-nilly.

So because it was men that are doing it this means it can't be oppressive. When Africa and India were colonized, they wouldn't use white men to rule over them. Rather they'd use people from their own ethnicity who was loyal to the European rulers.

This is called internal orientalism. It is still prevalent today in politics under the guise of Aryan race theory.

But again, no chance that men aren't influenced by others to make decisions that are harmful to other men? Why is one theory true but not the other?

Let us Agree to Agree?

There's also some evidence to suggest that Hitler's grandfather was jewish. Would this mean that Hitler was not oppressive to the jews? There were actually people under Hitler's high-command that had jewish ancestors.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Lol. Hitler was a self hating Jew. And Jesus was a black man according to some: http://www.theguardian.com... How does this change thing?

Discussing race in America is like trying to read Adam Smith or Ricardo in the USSR.

Agan, men in charge can't be self-hatng men? This can only apply to other categories.

Self-hate is internalized violence.

In the east, matriarchy functions with mothers imposing FGM on their daughters. Similarily, Patriarchy functions by imposing power relations on the lives of men.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 11:22:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 11:17:33 PM, fazz wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:11:09 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/27/2014 10:59:22 PM, fazz wrote:
At 10/27/2014 10:22:16 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/27/2014 10:06:53 PM, fazz wrote:

The darft is imposed by General and the Commander of the United States armed forces both men. It is the patriarchal-industrial complex that allows the Military to send men into their deaths willy-nilly.

So because it was men that are doing it this means it can't be oppressive. When Africa and India were colonized, they wouldn't use white men to rule over them. Rather they'd use people from their own ethnicity who was loyal to the European rulers.

This is called internal orientalism. It is still prevalent today in politics under the guise of Aryan race theory.

But again, no chance that men aren't influenced by others to make decisions that are harmful to other men? Why is one theory true but not the other?

Let us Agree to Agree?

So you do agree that men are influenced by others to make decisions that are harmful to other men? Can't women be these influencers?


There's also some evidence to suggest that Hitler's grandfather was jewish. Would this mean that Hitler was not oppressive to the jews? There were actually people under Hitler's high-command that had jewish ancestors.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Lol. Hitler was a self hating Jew. And Jesus was a black man according to some: http://www.theguardian.com... How does this change thing?

Discussing race in America is like trying to read Adam Smith or Ricardo in the USSR.

Agan, men in charge can't be self-hatng men? This can only apply to other categories.

Self-hate is internalized violence.

In the east, matriarchy functions with mothers imposing FGM on their daughters. Similarily, Patriarchy functions by imposing power relations on the lives of men.

I agree that self-hate can occur. Do you agree that men can be self-hating towards men? Or any other demographic that you believe is in "power" can also be the same and it is not just inclusive to minorities and "oppressed" groups?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 11:28:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I agree that self-hate can occur. Do you agree that men can be self-hating towards men? Or any other demographic that you believe is in "power" can also be the same and it is not just inclusive to minorities and "oppressed" groups?

^Ok this is a problematic statement. Can you ask a single question so I can reply?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 12:11:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 11:28:36 PM, fazz wrote:
I agree that self-hate can occur. Do you agree that men can be self-hating towards men? Or any other demographic that you believe is in "power" can also be the same and it is not just inclusive to minorities and "oppressed" groups?

^Ok this is a problematic statement. Can you ask a single question so I can reply?

You can answer the first one. It shouldn't take too long to answer both, but you can just answer the first question.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 12:14:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 11:28:36 PM, fazz wrote:

Btw. What is your political stance? Are you a libertarian?

Just trying to grasp your approach to this topic..