T̶u̶m̶b̶l̶r̶ wofl Megathread

[IkeTheGeneric]

They're too focused on attacking feminists than actually doing anything, but I'm sure there are exceptions.

The moment you start believing that the opposite gender rights activist group is the enemy is when you start doing your own cause harm.

[Ad Bot]

[childofdarkness016]

you're getting lazier and lazier. please explain how you can solve any of those by focusing on female problems and """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""the patriarchy™""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

maybe that's because i already said how and you're just being a richardwad

seriously those quotes are making you look incredibly immature

Men assuming a "feminine" role, such as being the abused rather than the abuser in rape or in any abusive relationship, is seen as "wrong" because they're not fitting what society expects of men, i.e., to be masculine. The patriarchy needs to be taken down because the idea that masculinity dominates over femininity is exactly what's causing this shame towards men's issues.

Destroying the patriarchy means destroying the concept that masculinity is better than femininity, which I believe to be the cause or related to each individual issue.

very little custody, parental rights

Taking care of the children is the woman's job.

bodily autonomy

probably the only issue you're right about, but if that's so, then the mrm is still pointless because you can just make "Ban Circumcision" or something

catasrophically high Self Delete rates

Emotions are associated with femininity. Self Delete tends to be caused by an emotional struggle, which men are often told to repress. Also, women are much more likely to attempt but not carry through with Self Delete. Part of the statistics, at least I am told, (i still think it's an issue, don't get me wrong) are part of the differences in male and female psychology.

0 male shelters

See the quote about how men are expected to be the abuser rather than the abused, which is wrong.

majority of homelessness

I will probably do more research on this, but I'm sure I can relate it with some time (please don't link me anything. I don't want any bias in my research).

and the large gender bias in america's schools are things solved by taking down the patriarchy.

I think this issue needs a bit more elaboration. Bias in grades? Bias in treatment?

But a lot of these issues are definitely originating from a male-dominated society.

Here's a little comparison:

"Radical Feminist": I'm a feminist who believes that men should be cut down to 10% of the population.
Others: That's not a feminist guys, trust us, look at the definition.

"Communist Libratarian": I'm a Libratarian but I dislike capitalism. We should have a Libratarian socicity with strict controls of business.
Others: Are you actually a member of the Libratarian party? Can you show us your Libratarian party voters card?





Here we see one label people randomly apply to themselves, and one political party with a strict set of values and goals and the ability to enforce these upon people calling themselves members of the party.

I'm still trying to process how the two are different. Both are contradicting their definitions, but they still have the right to use the label. Feminism, as you said, isn't a political party. It doesn't have strict rules in its beliefs. I don't see how that's a bad thing.

The moment you start believing that the opposite gender rights activist group is the enemy is when you start doing your own cause harm.

Which is what I was saying. I don't see MRAs as the enemy. They're wrong for disagreeing with feminism, not for wanting equality for men in where they are less privileged.

[Dreams_Of_Cheese]

new title is extremely accurate

[IkeTheGeneric]

Which is what I was saying. I don't see MRAs as the enemy. They're wrong for disagreeing with feminism, not for wanting equality for men in where they are less privileged.

Being a mens rights activist doesn't mean you instantly disagree with feminism. It could also mean that said member wants to focus on issues that feminism isn't concerned with.

And none of it has to do with loving privilege

[DrenDran]

Destroying the patriarchy means destroying the concept that masculinity is better than femininity, which I believe to be the cause or related to each individual issue.

"Masculinity" (assuming we can even agree on the definition) is the mark of successful people, both men and women. When you have two sets of values like these, you should tell people who have the less successful one to step up, not beg the people who are successful to accept weakness. I'd dare say we should be applying some of these traditionally masculine values to women rather than apply traditionally feminine values to men.

Part of the statistics, at least I am told, (i still think it's an issue, don't get me wrong) are part of the differences in male and female psychology.

e.g. being weaker

I'm still trying to process how the two are different. Both are contradicting their definitions, but they still have the right to use the label. Feminism, as you said, isn't a political party. It doesn't have strict rules in its beliefs. I don't see how that's a bad thing.

No, you can't really call your self a libertarian.
Anyone could ask for proof that you're really in the party and you wouldn't be able to give it to them.

[childofdarkness016]

Being a mens rights activist doesn't mean you instantly disagree with feminism.

Yes, it does. It's literally a counter movement, meaning it wants the opposite to want feminism wants, rather than something that complements it.

"Masculinity" (assuming we can even agree on the definition) is the mark of successful people, both men and women. When you have two sets of values like these, you should tell people who have the less successful one to step up, not beg the people who are successful to accept weakness. I'd dare say we should be applying some of these traditionally masculine values to women rather than apply traditionally feminine values to men

This makes no sense and I don't know why you always insist it's true. No one is going to change the way they understand their self-identity just because some utilitarian thinks they should.

e.g. being weaker

so men are weaker for killing themselves? Doesn't that contradict what you're saying?

Anyone could ask for proof that you're really in the party and you wouldn't be able to give it to them.

You could say something similar to a Christian who isn't fundamentalist. The Bible is supposed to be a strict rule for how Christianity works, after all. Does this mean that if you believe in Christianity but aren't fundamentalist, you have to "show your Christianity Card" because you don't adhere to a strict set of beliefs for something that's subjective in the first place?

Yes, all three are subjective. People will believe whatever they want and give it a label that's similar to their beliefs or create a new one. Feminists who believe that all men should die are still feminists, even if they contradict the core beliefs of feminism. A libertarian who is communist is still a libertarian, even if they contradict the core beliefs of the political party. A Christian who isn't fundamentalist is still Christian, even if they don't follow the New Testament entirely. People will interpret labels in a way that makes sense to them, and that's not a bad thing. What's a bad thing, however, is what these interpretations will do in the long run (which is the case for radical feminism, for example). Denying this is a No True Scotsman logic fallacy. After all, no true libertarian would believe in communism.

[Taboo]

Yes, it does. It's literally a counter movement, meaning it wants the opposite to want feminism wants, rather than something that complements it.

according to?

[IkeTheGeneric]

Yes, it does. It's literally a counter movement, meaning it wants the opposite to want feminism wants, rather than something that complements it.

I don't think you actually know what the mens rights movement actually wants :n

[Cool Boi]

Yes, it does. It's literally a counter movement, meaning it wants the opposite to want feminism wants, rather than something that complements it.

Pretty sure the MRM is for solving problems and injustices faced by men in society, feminism being the same thing.

[DrenDran]

This makes no sense and I don't know why you always insist it's true. No one is going to change the way they understand their self-identity just because some utilitarian thinks they should.

Masculine traits are better than feminine traits.
I'm for women but not femininity. Feminism is bad on these grounds.

so men are weaker for killing themselves? Doesn't that contradict what you're saying?

Not only do women resort to Self Delete far more often, they're too weak to even go though with it.
What kind of a failure do you have to be to not even be able to kill yourself? Seriously.

You could say something similar to a Christian who isn't fundamentalist. The Bible is supposed to be a strict rule for how Christianity works, after all. Does this mean that if you believe in Christianity but aren't fundamentalist, you have to "show your Christianity Card" because you don't adhere to a strict set of beliefs for something that's subjective in the first place?

You can't call yourself a Catholic and disagree with the Pope, really. I mean people do but it used to be grounds for excommunication. Religion is a joke these days anyway in the modern world. Just like feminism.

Yes, all three are subjective. People will believe whatever they want and give it a label that's similar to their beliefs or create a new one. Feminists who believe that all men should die are still feminists, even if they contradict the core beliefs of feminism. A libertarian who is communist is still a libertarian, even if they contradict the core beliefs of the political party. A Christian who isn't fundamentalist is still Christian, even if they don't follow the New Testament entirely. People will interpret labels in a way that makes sense to them, and that's not a bad thing. What's a bad thing, however, is what these interpretations will do in the long run (which is the case for radical feminism, for example). Denying this is a No True Scotsman logic fallacy. After all, no true libertarian would believe in communism.

My defense to this is that well organized groups have strict criteria for membership and therefore the fallacy simply does not apply. You're not drawing an arbitrary line in the sand of who is and is not a member, you have a source to which you can compare individuals.

[HerpaDerp]

childofdarkness I'm curious, could you list me specific areas that feminism is trying to change that they need a large movement for?
understanding that this is about gender equality, I just want to know what specific areas feminists are fighting for (jobs marriages rape etc)

[Cool Boi]

Not only do women resort to Self Delete far more often, they're too weak to even go though with it

From wikipedia

[DrenDran]

From wikipedia

"Resort to" does not mean "successfully complete" lol
Women attempt it about 4 times as often. But fail almost every time.

[Kimon²]

if the patriarchy is "taken down", people are going to see it as a victory for women. men aren't going to see that and think "wow, we don't have to die more often in the work place now! we dont have to end up homeless more often! those judges are definitely going to listen to us more now! we won't have to suppress our emotions and kill ourselves now!" it's not going to just magically solve men's issues indirectly. you have to change the way men are viewed in society. i mean i don't even know how "smashing the patriarchy" is going to suddenly change everything. it sure as hell is going to help women, but men are going to see that and think masculinity is a toxic thing. the harsh truth is that nobody is going to view men any differently if that big change happens one day, because masculinity will still exist, and the concept that they were ahead of women in the first place is going to make everything seem equal, and nobody's going to bother taking on men's issues because it's apparently all better now. and the mindset that only advancing women's rights will help men too is going to be the death of hope anyone had that men's issues would be taken seriously and not just viewed as "mens issues are a product of them being bad in the first place." i've said this already but people are always going to say that once women have all the representation men have, it will be equal, and the very common problems that men face will be overlooked because "everything is equal now that we fixed females' issues."

i mean i don't know if this makes any sense to you guys because it's 12:30 and should not be trying to type an essay but the bottom line is that the only way to solve women's issues is by directly solving them and the only way to solve men's issues is first acknowledging that they exist, and then solving them directly. the whole belief that you can just solve men's issues with one graceful swoop by getting rid of women's problems is loving dumb. so yeah the mrm should exist because they are currently the only ones actually working to raise awareness about men's issues instead of doing a piss-poor job like feminism is doing.

[childofdarkness016]

I don't think you actually know what the mens rights movement actually wants :n

Pretty sure the MRM is for solving problems and injustices faced by men in society, feminism being the same thing.

"The MRM is considered to be a backlash or counter-movement to feminism, often as a result of a perceived threat to traditional gender roles."

If the last part of this sentence doesn't explain it than I don't know what will. Also, the quote is from the wikipedia article on the MRM and it is cited. Check it out if you really want to defend yourself, I guess.

Masculine traits are better than feminine traits.
I'm for women but not femininity. Feminism is bad on these grounds.

good luck starting your anti-femininity (but pro-equality!) movement

I just don't think you understand why this doesn't make any sense.

Not only do women resort to Self Delete far more often, they're too weak to even go though with it.
What kind of a failure do you have to be to not even be able to kill yourself? Seriously.

I don't think you realize the emotional trauma that one deals with while attempting Self Delete, mostly because I doubt you've ever had anything bad happen to you in the first place and have an absurdly objective view on subjective topics. People who attempt-but-don't-commit are a lot stronger than you would think, but I guess it's something you'd have to experience first hand.

You can't call yourself a Catholic and disagree with the Pope, really. I mean people do but it used to be grounds for excommunication. Religion is a joke these days anyway in the modern world. Just like feminism.
My defense to this is that well organized groups have strict criteria for membership and therefore the fallacy simply does not apply. You're not drawing an arbitrary line in the sand of who is and is not a member, you have a source to which you can compare individuals.

I can go around saying I'm Conservative and still be in favor of gay marriage (but agree with every other topic conservatives often are a part of). People aren't going to question the legitimacy of my beliefs, despite the fact gay marriage contradicts the traditions conservatives seek to preserve. And the example I gave is a belief that several people hold, even if it's a minority in the Conservative party. I don't see how that's different, and I still think that libertarians are just as strict in organization as any social movement or political party or whatever. The only way to achieve that sort of organization that you claim Libertarians have is to have a singular leader or at least some way to sign up and receive a legitimate "Libertarian Card." Which isn't happening because it's incredibly stupid and people aren't going to care about something like that.

if the patriarchy is "taken down", people are going to see it as a victory for women.

which it shouldn't be but i know it will, sadly.

it's not going to just magically solve men's issues indirectly. you have to change the way men are viewed in society. i mean i don't even know how "smashing the patriarchy" is going to suddenly change everything.

I did say that smashing the patriarchy is giving people equal rights, right

I'm too lazy to get the quote but I know I said that.

it sure as hell is going to help women, but men are going to see that and think masculinity is a toxic thing.

This is a common fear men seem to hold when it comes to feminism. Assuming we're talking about feminism in the most objective way possible, it has nothing to do with masculinity. It's not making it better or worse. And masculinity is fine the way it is. The way men treated isn't.

the harsh truth is that nobody is going to view men any differently if that big change happens one day, because masculinity will still exist, and the concept that they were ahead of women in the first place is going to make everything seem equal, and nobody's going to bother taking on men's issues because it's apparently all better now.

first of all how can smashing the patriarchy happen in one day

you are literally changing the way people view society

And, I don't think that will happen if people acknowledge that the patriarchy affects men too, which I agree is something that isn't entirely mainstream. It should be, though.

and the mindset that only advancing women's rights will help men too is going to be the death of hope anyone had that men's issues would be taken seriously and not just viewed as "mens issues are a product of them being bad in the first place."

Mind you, I am always careful in my wording to differentiate between femininity and womanhood. Especially with the new way people perceive gender (as in a spectrum rather than a binary system), femininity refers to both men and women. It may primarily refer to women, but that's because most people are cisgendered. I believe in advancing femininity, not just women.

i've said this already but people are always going to say that once women have all the representation men have, it will be equal, and the very common problems that men face will be overlooked because "everything is equal now that we fixed females' issues."

I don't think people will just say "loveism is over" ever. Racism still isn't "over." There will always be a new issue that surfaces, because we can never reach true equality.

i mean i don't know if this makes any sense to you guys because it's 12:30 and should not be trying to type an essay but the bottom line is that the only way to solve women's issues is by directly solving them and the only way to solve men's issues is first acknowledging that they exist, and then solving them directly. the whole belief that you can just solve men's issues with one graceful swoop by getting rid of women's problems is loving dumb. so yeah the mrm should exist because they are currently the only ones actually working to raise awareness about men's issues instead of doing a piss-poor job like feminism is doing.

the essay you wrote doesn't make too much sense but i get your point and will kindly disagree and add nothing more to that