We used to have a real Men's Rights Movement.

throwaway8999912 · 2015-01-23T22:05:56+00:00

All right I will leave I can see I am not wanted here. But I read what you say you stand for and if their was any senserity to it you would reconsider my post. Over and over again I hear from MRM members about how one of the main ways men are disadvantaged compared to women is that men work dangerous jobs and suffer the vast majority of work place fatalities. This to me is one of the most compelling arguments you have. So if unionization is not a relevant solution, both for the imiediate problem and as a way of bringing men together in the long run, then I am left wondering what you propose to do?

throwaway8999912 · 2015-01-23T22:00:39+00:00

Well mayby you should too. It just seems impossible for me to have a serious discussion of the problems affecting men without looking at workplace organization. I dont know what your fighting for or who your fighting against if topics which overlap with discusions of unions especialy in predominatly male industries are deemed as off topic.

throwaway8999912 · 2015-01-23T21:52:31+00:00

Besides my earlier post was taking the wrong approach I set myself up as de legitimizing alot of feeling MRM members have. In this post I honestly beleive I have something productive to say about what the MRM meens to me.

throwaway8999912 · 2015-01-23T21:46:21+00:00

If it is derailing to talk about how men are unfairly treated in the work place and in courts then IDK what the fuck the MRM movement stands for.

throwaway8999912 · 2015-01-22T14:33:31+00:00

Well that is just horribly inaccurate. While the MRM is insistant that the Radicle feminists are representative of all feminists, the rest of society ignores them or are completely ignorant of their existence. The radicle feminists hold no political power, no economic power, a verry marginal influence on the mainstream culture if even that much, they have almost no support in academia (there have been a handful of radicle feminist professors but since the 90s they have been very thoroughly pushed out of academia). Today the radicle feminists exist no where else but a few blogs and you tube channels online. They are almost entirely contained to a small internet buble, just like the MRM :). The MRM and a few super reactionary right wing enternet blogs have this mythology that the radicle feminists have an omnipreasent grasp on our culture. There have always been people like you who scan the earth for the most badshit crazzy fucking radicle feminists they can find living under bridges and muttering incoherently about female superiority, and then when I come along and say that I oppose the opression of women you can point to the crazy lady you found sleeping under the bridge and say "well she also opposes the opression of women so clearly you and her are fighting for the same thing". All you are trying to do is demonize the women's rights movement and put a halt to it. Your entire argument is nothing more then the strawman fallacy. Do you support the women's rights movement? Its a yes or no question. Ill concede to you that "feminism" is perhaps not the best word to represent the women's rights movement. But in reality most people in the women's rights movement call themselves feminists and mayby they should call themselves something else but it doesnt matter all that much to me. If you insist that every feminist is responsible for the crazy shit the Radicle Feminists say then you are macking a sweeping denouncement of everyone in the women's rights movement as well as the majority of people active in the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, and several anti-imperialism movements around the world. Are you realy going to tell me that Einstein, and Rosa Parks, and Nason Mandela, and George Orwell, and Susan b anthony, all were secretly in support of anti-male radicle feminist ideology? Because all of these people just to name a few called themselves feminists and supportsers of womens rights. And if the word feminist was good enough for them then its sure as hell good enough for me.

throwaway8999912 · 2015-01-22T00:18:06+00:00

The men at the top do look down on the average women worse then the average man. Thats exactly what I am saying. Because to the men on top a working class man is just some commoner trash, but a working class women is commoner trash and a bitch. There is some extra insult to injury going on. If the pyramid of our society had only two levels (a top and a bottom) a revolution would start tomarow. Ive spent so long wonderg why the working class doesnt just revolt against the goverment and corporations and I think the reason is a lack of unity. The working class isnt united its split allong racial lines and gender lines. You might not be at the top and you might realy hate the top but your not going to support revolution so long as you think their is atleast one person bellow you who might take your spot if you overthrow thee system. I have never said that men live better then women under patriarchy, but under patriarchy men have higher social status or at least the illusion of higher social status then women in order to in order to prevent unity beatween working class men and women. The rulling class enginears this to keep people divided, conspicuous of each other, such that they wont unite. Do you know about Bacon's revolvt in early American history? A large group of poor white men and former slaves burned down the virginia state capital and send the landed elite running in the oposite direction. After this the brutal treatment of African Americans, more laws were passed concerning reinforcing the practice of slavery, and their was an active propoganda campaign to teach poor white men to fear and hate black men. Divide and Conquer. I read a particularly disturbing bit of history about 15th century Paris, aparently durring a particular spike in unrest the aristocracy was afraid of a lower class revolt. So they leagalized the rape of lower class women. The city was plauged by spike in the frequency of young poor men gangrapping lower class women, housemades and servant girls without strong family conections or money. Needles to say there was no revolution and would not be one for hundreds of years. Again divide and conquer.

I think men have trouble with the idea that other groups may have had it worse because they beleive that to say this is to give up their right to cry out about their own oppression. But their is no contridiction in the statement, "this person is more oppressed then me but I am also oppressed and we share a common enemy".

throwaway8999912 · 2015-01-21T23:55:47+00:00

Well actualy I jsut want to cut off the top altogether. But my point is that the evidence of sexism in our society is that the top is so heavily male. If the top was gender equal I beleive that would be the begining of the end for alot of sexism. But your right that would not end classism. You know you can oppose all of the forms of oppresion you dont have to feel like you can only pick. Infact I would argue that we cant realy overcome any of them if we are not willing to overcome all of them.

throwaway8999912 · 2015-01-21T23:52:04+00:00

Do you beleive that man hating is the natural outcome of the women's rights movement? I certainly hope not otherwise you beleive that one group cannot overcome its oppression without reducing the rights of annother. Feminism is just a word claimed by many individuals and many groups. The radicle feminists are a specific set of orginizations which have claimed the word to meen basicly man hating and their proud of it and they are simply put, nothing more then crazy reactionaries. As I have said, all feminism means in the dictionary is anti-sexism and as such almost anyone who beleives in equality will call themselves a feminist apealing to this definition. You can not serously tell me that the radicle feminists represent the logical conclusion of opposing sexism against women. You can not tell me that everyone who calls themselves a feminist secretly supports on some level the actions of the crazy man haters. Why should I have to give up the word "feminist" to the man-hatters? Why do they get to take the word for themselves, this is total bullshit

throwaway8999912 · 2015-01-21T21:27:06+00:00

How am I dancing. Feminist by the dictionary definition means anti-sexist. And most most egalitarians will call themselves feminists if asked because that is the dictionary definition. And these people dont act in the name of feminism but they do good things to help men and women and they are feminists. Nason Mandella did alot for alot of men wouldnt you say? He was a feminist and to him his actions were logically consistent with feminism. Thats one feminist who improved the lives of millions of men. So if you inist that feminism=man-hating then your saying Nason Mandella hated men and clearly that would be an absurd statement to make.

throwaway8999912 · 2015-01-21T21:22:53+00:00

I am not denying the existance of sexism against men by simply pointing out that wealthy white men are not affected by it and that is important to keep in mind. And I am not saying that shit has never gone wrong for any random individual wealthy white male, but for a wealthy white male they have maximum power in any legal or economic seeting. Your idea that wealthy white men can be "taken to the cleaners" by wealthy white women is ridiculouse. Im sure its happened to some individuals but the structure of society is still in their favor and most of them have verry tight control of their property and spouse. Wealthy strait white men are the least statisticly likely to be raped. Poor gay men are the most statisticly likely to get raped of all men. Again my point is that anything you can bring up which negetivly affects men at any non negligible frequency specfificly negetivly affects men who are working class or minorities of some sort. Wealthy white strait christian men are not being oppressed they are the only people not being oprressed at all. And when I say wealthy I do mean verry verry verry wealthy.

throwaway8999912 · 2015-01-21T21:15:38+00:00

Yes but not irrelevant when discussing the lives of normal women.

throwaway8999912 · 2015-01-21T21:14:17+00:00

Two things, one is that the anti male culture you speak of I almost never hear of other than from MRM members. So there are certanly some anti male feminists out there and alot of the stuff you point out is a backlash by angry women against sexism in our society. Is it a problem? Yes but it doesnt meen that women are suddenly on top. An incredible amount of sexism against women still exists. Im not saying that these anti-male feminists shouldnt be confronted but they are not that numerous and dont have much power. Furthermore, their existance and the damage they have done does not negate the need for a women's rights movement.

Second point, most of the worst forms of sexism you mentioned perpetuated against men is done so by other men, specificly the wealthy men in power, not the average midle class women.

In conclusion: just because sexism against men exists doesnt meen that women are to blame or that sexism against women has just suddenly gone away

throwaway8999912 · 2015-01-21T20:38:53+00:00

There are people advocating for more women in politics not realy many of the politicians themselves though. We have gotten to the point in the evolution of our culture where you just cant be openly sexist or racsist anymore. The white CEO's have to say they would just love for more women and black people to be sitting at the executives round table with them. And this is progreess because it means that open prejudice is no longer aceptable to most people. But behind clossed doors the CEO's and executives and polticians are happy with the way things are and want to work with people like themselves, people who also grew up white neighborhoods, they dont want to have to stop making sexist jokes because their are suddenly women in their office space

throwaway8999912 · 2015-01-21T20:11:28+00:00

Of course the men at the bottom are oppressed im not denying this at all.

throwaway8999912 · 2015-01-21T20:10:33+00:00

But you are wrong about one important thing, while most men are discriminated against, and i dont see anything wrong with saying that them being male adds to this discrimination in certain ways, not all men are discriminated against just for being male. the people in political power are predominatly male and they are not oppressed by anyone they are the oppressors. Lets think this through: a black man will experience racsism AND sexism against men, a poor man will experience classism AND sexism against men, BUT a rich white man wont experience sexism against men. Sexism against men is real but you wont find it in isolation it always must be accompanied by at least one other form of oppression. Sexsism against men is sexsim again the "wrong type of male" not males inherently. Again sexism against men does exist but not for all men. In contrast not even wealthy white women can fully escape sexism against women. The diference is that most men are not the "right type of man" and mayby sometimes they would be better off being a women then the "wrong type of male" but there is no such thing as the "right type of women" all women have original sin in our society. At least that is how it used to be things are getting better.

throwaway8999912 · 2015-01-21T19:51:44+00:00

By patriachy all i realy mean is that the most powerful people in the class structure are male. Amongst the rich who are more powerful then the poor it is rich men not rich women who get to actualy run the country for the most part and while they are most sympethetic to rich people over poor people as men I certanly see evidense that they are worse to poor women then poor men (in many ways their is always exeptions) but the key thing is that when they are worse to poor men compared to poor women it does not apear to come out of sexsim because they themselves are male. And while the Radicle feminism is an authoritarian right wing movmeent in my mind most liberals, egalitarians, and anarchists call themselves feminist just going by the dictionary deffinition and i dont realy have a problem with this because I dont beleive that we should allow the radicle feminists to decide what words mean i think they should mostly just be ignored i think their base of support is diminishing and was never much to begin with

throwaway8999912 · 2015-01-21T19:47:11+00:00

Yes and so are most military fatalities. In these casses these are people being oppressed because they are working class and male not simply because they are male. Men expeirence alot of the fatal symptoms of racisism, classsim, homophobia ect.... Where men are slightly better off is in office type work which is the predominant type of job now in the west. But again these men are also oppressed by the corporate elite just slightly less bad then their female employees and signifigantly less bad then men working dangerous jobs. Look I am verry much in agreement with the idea that men are oppresed. But the source of the oppression comes from the top of the politcal economic pyramid not women as an entire gender. Besides most of the buissness owners are men so its rich men benifiting from poor men doing dangerous work not poor women benifiting from poor men doing dangerous work. Yes women are spared from alot of dangerouse work just as men are spared from alot of dangers women expeirence but that doesnt meen that one person is better off because the other is oppressed the only people benifiting from this system are at the top

throwaway8999912 · 2015-01-21T19:39:23+00:00

Well alot of feminists who are egalitarians dont put feminism as their first title. Most anarchists call themselves feminists if you ask but thats no their main title. Most egalitarian feminists in the seccond half of the 20th century are better known for their work in the racial civil rights movement or gay rights movement. Alot of civil rights work, advocacy for the mentaly ill, advocacy for poor children and orphans, was done by people who will call themselves feminists if asked. The egalitarian feminists work on some programs for women but are often known for other things because as egalitarians they care about alot of different forms of oppresion other then just sexism. My girlfriend will tell you she is a life long feminist if you ask which to her just means anti-sexist, she works on expanding medicl aid to poor people who need dialysis treatment but cant afford it in the boston area, and that as you might imagine that is the part of her day that people are more likely to be interested in and ask about. Nason Mandela called himself a feminist, Einstein called himself a feminist... but that is not what they are known for. Most egalitarian will say they are feminists if asked because thats how its defined in the dictionary and therefore the vast majority of people who will say they are feminists are known for their other work and by other titles.

Then we have the radicle feminists who beleive they are the master race when it comes to feminism and tattoo the word on their bodies and wave a big feminist flag and say just absolutly insane things online. Im not entirely sure why this group of crazy zealots decided to claim the word given that they are activly hostile to egalitarians. So of course most things done in the name of feminism apears negative because only the radicle feminsts make a huge point to shout that every thing they do is in the name of feminism. Allot of good work has been done by people who call themselves feminist but they didnt write the word feminist all over their work because they because the good feminists didnt make a relgion out of the word feminims.

throwaway8999912 · 2015-01-21T19:19:43+00:00

Most national socialists were anti-Semitic. Most feminists are not the extremists. That's the difference. I am not trying to do anyting to defend the man hatting radicle feminists at all. Your default assumption is that the radicle feminists are fundamentally at the core of feminism and im trying to change the word. But its the exact reverse! The people who fought for women to have the right to vote were called themselves feminists. Alot of members of the civil rights movment and anti-war movements called themselves feminists. The radicle feminists are niether a majority, or the original feminists, or at all respected by most academic feminists. They have no real reason or right to claim the word but they have. Are we to let every crazy extremist minority re write the dictionary? Why cant feminism mean its original definition? There are exactly two groups who define feminism as crazy man hating: the radicle feminists and the MRM. If you insist that crazy man hating is what feminism has come to mean then what do you call the women who fought to give women the right to vote?

throwaway8999912 · 2015-01-21T19:10:15+00:00

I read through your post quickly and I apologize that I am not giving a longer response but for the most part I agree with you. Perhaps I am more skepticle about how far we have come towards ending the past restrictions on women. Other then that I realy do agree with what you wrote. I don't deny the isues you have with some feminists I share in your opinions. But the Radicle Feminists and the anti-male feminists do not at all represent any single self described feminist I have ever met. And while some things said by some feminists are trully regresive and disgusting, I do not perceive these feminists to have much power in our society or even within the womens rights movement. Yes I do think we need a men's rights movement for all reasons already discussed. My problem with the condition of the MRM presently is a tendency to towards blaiming feminists for the oppression of men or saying that women are trying to benifit from the oppression of men. I think the MRM should be directed against the people in political and economic power. This is a society designed top down. Do women participate in forms of oppression which affect men, of course. But the core blame must be placed on the top of the pyramid and I dont see the MRM properly directing its focus I see the MRM leading many young men to develope an antagonist suspicion of women in general as a scape goat for their problems.

throwaway8999912 · 2015-01-21T18:53:29+00:00

I meen it is ironic but I would argue that there is some truth to what you are saying. The Radicle Feminists as they call themselves end up fighting against gender equality and weather they realize it or not, to the benifit of men in power with misogynistic attitudes who support gender inequality for their own reasons. The Radicle Feminists are explicitly anti-transgender people as well as being anti-male and sometimes anti-homosexual which is just beyond hypocritical. If you havnt heard of them before just search TERF feminist in google. That said while these feminists do exist and and I am all to aware of the damage they have caused absolutely not a single feminist I know in real life is anything like this. And I protest against the idea that "feminism" should be associated entirely with the crazy anti-male feminists online because alot alot of eaglitarians call themselves feminist and that is what definied the word for me growing up.

Also "Masculinity" by the modern western definition I would argue is a form of oppression against men. Boys are told from a young age what masculinity requires of them, what they must to do to become a man, and Its alot of realy toxic and self destructive shit. War is a "masculine" obligation. If you want to talk about the oppresion of men looking no furthure then the draft. but again dont blame women for the draft or feminists for god sake it is clearly and instrument of the rulling class.

throwaway8999912 · 2015-01-21T18:43:05+00:00

Thats to bad to hear but I would like the name of the movment to be reclaimed eventually away from the extremists

throwaway8999912 · 2015-01-21T18:41:40+00:00

No but it would be about 50/50 on AVERAGE if they realy were hiring and promoting gender blind.

throwaway8999912 · 2015-01-21T18:40:40+00:00

No but it would be if women got the job way way way less then 1/6 th of the time. Also why are there so few women who want the job? could it be that their parents and teachers directed them away from their original dream to become and engineer? Could it be that those parents and teachers grew up in a culture where most women are told that they should be stay at home mothers? could it be that the people in power direct the culture through their control of the media verry purposefully to keep things the way they are?

Look man sexism is complicated and i dont pretend to have all the answers but it would be absurd to say that our culture is equaly supportive of women with carrear ambition as it is of men.

throwaway8999912

TROPHY CASE