3 ms·

"However, I must emphatically and proudly express that I do not support the negation and devaluing of women's (as well as ethnic, [other] cultural, LGBT, etc.)

by nawitus 14y ago

"However, I must emphatically and proudly express that I do not support the negation and devaluing of women's (as well as ethnic, [other] cultural, LGBT, etc.) rights by way of reactionary countering with a "men's rights" movement." Then you don't support equality. Men have the same amount of gender equality issues (maybe even more) than women in Western countries. "From a historical perspective alone" History has no relevance to the fact tha men today have about the same mount of gender equality issues. In addition, just because the majority of rulers and people in power were men, that doesn't mean the majority of men were in power. In fact, rulers, politicians and CEOs constitute less than 0.1% of the population. You cannot prove anything about the average man by talking about an extremely tiny minority. Meanwhile in history men have been forced to fight bloody wars, work to death in horrible conditions etc. "More abstractly, a "men's rights" movement would, I think, offer very little gain to humanity as a whole" It would gain a huge amount of well-being. Such a movement is required so politicians will also try to fix gender equality issues that men face. List here: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/uwekw/facts_and_statistics_detailing_male_oppression/ http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/uwekw/facts_and_...

truthtacular 14y ago
> Men have the same amount of gender equality issues (maybe even more) than women in Western countries. FYI, when you stay stuff like that, you seem totally unhinged to people who have actual contact with the real world. That may sound harsh, but I ain't in this internet arguin' business to baby folks. The "facts" you link to are pretty laughable. You seriously found a reputable source that says men are more likely to be raped than women? Amazing. > Meanwhile in history men have been forced to fight bloody wars, work to death in horrible conditions etc. I hate how women are always forcing men to go fight wars. Also, ugh, hard work sucks! The United Nations Development Programme tells us that "Women perform 66 percent of the world’s work, produce 50 percent of the food, but earn only 10 percent of the income and own only one percent of the property." (http://tinyurl.com/cy2dtzs http://tinyurl.com/cy2dtzs) You can argue with these facts and figures, question them--how they were compiled, what they really mean, etc.--but the vast preponderance of evidence, gathered by scholars and researchers (male and female) from many fields over many years, is going to contest your assertions. And the worst part is...you probably have a handful of really good points buried in amongst all the nonsense. Like about how courts automatically seem to favor mothers in custody cases, like about the draft exempting women, etc. But how seriously is anyone going to take those genuine concerns when they can't be seen through the morass of much sillier claims?
- nawitus 14y ago
  "FYI, when you stay stuff like that, you seem totally unhinged to people who have actual contact with the real world. That may sound harsh, but I ain't in this internet arguin' business to baby folks." Irrational argument. "The "facts" you link to are pretty laughable. You seriously found a reputable source that says men are more likely to be raped than women? Amazing." Irrational argument. "I hate how women are always forcing men to go fight wars." Gender equality problem exists regardless of the causes. Even if men forced other men to fight wars, that doesn't mean men were not forced to fight wars. The problem still exists. Currently in my country only men have to take part in forced labor. I know, I did my share. Women do not have to do any forced labor. 60% of the voters in recent elections have been women, and they indirectly decide the laws. "Also, ugh, hard work sucks! The United Nations Development Programme tells us that" Actually, that claim is unfounded. If you try to follow the trail of sources, you cannot find the original calculation. In addition, your argument has no revelance, because I talked about the past, not the present in the sentence. "But how seriously is anyone going to take those genuine concerns when they can't be seen through the morass of much sillier claims?" I'm not a politician, so I try to argue on the basis of what I believe to be true.
  - dkdkdk 14y ago
    Sorry buddy but the only irrational person here is you. If not that then you are being quite disingenuous. You are selectively choosing facts to support your arguments. You are ignoring thousands of years of history and now suddenly you claim that men are being somehow oppressed. In fact, you definitely seem quite unhinged. You sound exactly the same like people deciding that affirmative action is racists because it discriminates against the "white men" while at the same time forgetting that the "white men" is currently enjoying the spoils that their ancestors left them from enslaving blacks and stealing and pretty much committing virtual genocide against native people from the Americas. Frankly sir, you are full of shit.
bobwaycott 14y ago
I do, in fact, support equality for everyone, regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, religion, etc. However, you are very selectively choosing facts to draw a picture in which men "have the same amount of gender equality issues (maybe even more) than women". Sorry, but you are severely mistaken regarding the relevance of history. It is of primary relevance, because without properly understanding how we arrived at this point in history, you couldn't possibly evaluate the actual scale of gender disparities in social relations. The percentage of male rulers as a total percentage of the human population is not a valid metric. When you study history, and the impact of rulers, you evaluate their impact on the subject population, the society and culture, as well as the world around them. History, because it is ever so relevant, shows a rather stable trend in which one can chart the increases in social inequalities in favor of one gender at the expense of another, or of one (or more) ethnicities at the expense of others, etc. So far, we are looking at about a century of social justice being established to improve the standing of women in relation to their historical subjection by men. Once you have an adequate grounding in history, you can then start thinking philosophically through how best to proceed without retarding equality. While there are, of course, contemporary social imbalances and inequalities where men are concerned, what we do not need is more gendered lines being drawn in the sand. Moreover, we do not have a social structure in which men's labor and sexual faculties are institutionalized in a form that is under female control, which would be a huge red flag that the pendulum has swung too far. One can advance equality and be vigilant against sexism, racism, and other forms of bigotry and discriminatory behaviors without resorting to more of this us vs. them bullshit that "men's rights" evokes. But understanding the root causes of inequalities--as opposed to merely pointing out instances of what appears to be inequality--is where the real work lies. Not a masculinism cult that establishes its identity as the negation of feminism. In sum, a "men's rights" movement is not going to increase equality, because it is only going to codify more gendered division in the social fabric. If you're really interested in enhancing equality as a social good, you would do better to champion the cause of equality that is blind to biological and socioeconomic factors, and works instead to specifically eschew attempting to define equality as inversion of a movement whose existence required the specificity of gender because history had only ever concerned itself with the rights of man.
- 14y ago
pseudosmith 14y ago
A "men's rights" movement reminds me of some white supremacist making a comment about "white rights". And it is just as pathetic.

by nawitus 14y ago

truthtacular 14y ago

> Men have the same amount of gender equality issues (maybe even more) than women in Western countries. FYI, when you stay stuff like that, you seem totally unhinged to people who have actual contact with the real world. That may sound harsh, but I ain't in this internet arguin' business to baby folks. The "facts" you link to are pretty laughable. You seriously found a reputable source that says men are more likely to be raped than women? Amazing. > Meanwhile in history men have been forced to fight bloody wars, work to death in horrible conditions etc. I hate how women are always forcing men to go fight wars. Also, ugh, hard work sucks! The United Nations Development Programme tells us that "Women perform 66 percent of the world’s work, produce 50 percent of the food, but earn only 10 percent of the income and own only one percent of the property." (http://tinyurl.com/cy2dtzs http://tinyurl.com/cy2dtzs) You can argue with these facts and figures, question them--how they were compiled, what they really mean, etc.--but the vast preponderance of evidence, gathered by scholars and researchers (male and female) from many fields over many years, is going to contest your assertions. And the worst part is...you probably have a handful of really good points buried in amongst all the nonsense. Like about how courts automatically seem to favor mothers in custody cases, like about the draft exempting women, etc. But how seriously is anyone going to take those genuine concerns when they can't be seen through the morass of much sillier claims?

nawitus 14y ago
"FYI, when you stay stuff like that, you seem totally unhinged to people who have actual contact with the real world. That may sound harsh, but I ain't in this internet arguin' business to baby folks." Irrational argument. "The "facts" you link to are pretty laughable. You seriously found a reputable source that says men are more likely to be raped than women? Amazing." Irrational argument. "I hate how women are always forcing men to go fight wars." Gender equality problem exists regardless of the causes. Even if men forced other men to fight wars, that doesn't mean men were not forced to fight wars. The problem still exists. Currently in my country only men have to take part in forced labor. I know, I did my share. Women do not have to do any forced labor. 60% of the voters in recent elections have been women, and they indirectly decide the laws. "Also, ugh, hard work sucks! The United Nations Development Programme tells us that" Actually, that claim is unfounded. If you try to follow the trail of sources, you cannot find the original calculation. In addition, your argument has no revelance, because I talked about the past, not the present in the sentence. "But how seriously is anyone going to take those genuine concerns when they can't be seen through the morass of much sillier claims?" I'm not a politician, so I try to argue on the basis of what I believe to be true.
- dkdkdk 14y ago
  Sorry buddy but the only irrational person here is you. If not that then you are being quite disingenuous. You are selectively choosing facts to support your arguments. You are ignoring thousands of years of history and now suddenly you claim that men are being somehow oppressed. In fact, you definitely seem quite unhinged. You sound exactly the same like people deciding that affirmative action is racists because it discriminates against the "white men" while at the same time forgetting that the "white men" is currently enjoying the spoils that their ancestors left them from enslaving blacks and stealing and pretty much committing virtual genocide against native people from the Americas. Frankly sir, you are full of shit.

bobwaycott 14y ago

I do, in fact, support equality for everyone, regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, religion, etc. However, you are very selectively choosing facts to draw a picture in which men "have the same amount of gender equality issues (maybe even more) than women". Sorry, but you are severely mistaken regarding the relevance of history. It is of primary relevance, because without properly understanding how we arrived at this point in history, you couldn't possibly evaluate the actual scale of gender disparities in social relations. The percentage of male rulers as a total percentage of the human population is not a valid metric. When you study history, and the impact of rulers, you evaluate their impact on the subject population, the society and culture, as well as the world around them. History, because it is ever so relevant, shows a rather stable trend in which one can chart the increases in social inequalities in favor of one gender at the expense of another, or of one (or more) ethnicities at the expense of others, etc. So far, we are looking at about a century of social justice being established to improve the standing of women in relation to their historical subjection by men. Once you have an adequate grounding in history, you can then start thinking philosophically through how best to proceed without retarding equality. While there are, of course, contemporary social imbalances and inequalities where men are concerned, what we do not need is more gendered lines being drawn in the sand. Moreover, we do not have a social structure in which men's labor and sexual faculties are institutionalized in a form that is under female control, which would be a huge red flag that the pendulum has swung too far. One can advance equality and be vigilant against sexism, racism, and other forms of bigotry and discriminatory behaviors without resorting to more of this us vs. them bullshit that "men's rights" evokes. But understanding the root causes of inequalities--as opposed to merely pointing out instances of what appears to be inequality--is where the real work lies. Not a masculinism cult that establishes its identity as the negation of feminism. In sum, a "men's rights" movement is not going to increase equality, because it is only going to codify more gendered division in the social fabric. If you're really interested in enhancing equality as a social good, you would do better to champion the cause of equality that is blind to biological and socioeconomic factors, and works instead to specifically eschew attempting to define equality as inversion of a movement whose existence required the specificity of gender because history had only ever concerned itself with the rights of man.

14y ago

pseudosmith 14y ago

A "men's rights" movement reminds me of some white supremacist making a comment about "white rights". And it is just as pathetic.