Kraichgauer wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
If I didn't know any better, I'd say you just showed your hand for being a men's rightser.
Sure, men suffer. So do women. Correcting past wrongs committed against a group of citizens left outside isn't about taking rights away from the ingroup, but about bringing those on the outside in.
And for the record, before I was married, I had been terribly taken advantage of by a woman with Borderline Personality Disorder, and trust me, I suffered reams. But I didn't walk away a misogynist.
If I'm reading you correctly - I may not be, it's quite a muddled post - you're equating support of men's rights with misogyny, yes?
As the men's rights movement is a reactionary movement meant to undermine the civil rights gains of women, no different from the reactionary white nationalist movement trying to roll back the civil rights gains of racial minorities, my answer is an emphatic YES.
I don't recognise the jurisdiction of the MRM over men's rights, and thus reject your justification of what is legally defined as "hate speech". I fully support the rights of all individuals, regardless of arbitrary distinctions, which happens to include the rights of all men. Further, I suggest that the proposition that support for men's rights is misogynist qualifies as de facto bigotry.
Quote:
Men are no more an oppressed group than are whites.
I'm disinterested in collectivist victimhood. I'm concerned with human rights, not identity politics.
I have absolutely no problem with individual human rights, regardless of sex or race. Just the same, the men's rights and white nationalist movements are by nature reactionary, and based on identity politics at their worse.
And weren't actually relevant to the question I asked. I'm not sure why you brought them up, except as a weak justification for a proposition which I consider to be rather bigoted.
Your characterisation of the MRM doesn't match my experience of anywhere near the majority of individuals who purport to represent it. I'm also confused by your intimation that being reactionary is somehow an indictment of a movement - most, if not all movements are reactionary. Likewise, I'm baffled by the vague implication you seem to be making that the MRM is somehow connected to white nationalism.
In-group good, out-group bad, counter-group Hitler seems to be the sum total of your political beliefs.
Dox47 wrote:
It's pretty remarkable just how thoroughly the men's rights groups have lost the PR wars, to the point where they're treated as de facto hate groups. They actually have some pretty reasonable positions on divorce and child custody issues, rights of the accused in sexual assault cases, conflicting demands made of men by modern society, etc, but you'd never know about any of that over the constant din of the feminists branding them rape apologists living in their parents' basements.
Actually, they seem to be gaining considerable momentum, especially across social media (which shouldn't be underestimated), due to tireless campaigning by some of the more palatable figureheads. I think it's rather telling that the MRM was readily condemned as a collective due to the vitriol of a couple of inflammatory members of AVFM, whilst radical feminists enjoyed the sanctity provided by their nebulous women's rights advocating counterparts. Of the privileges afforded to women, and those who speak on their behalf, I would include a willingness to overlook tone and content which is not afforded to men and their advocates.
Of course, one shouldn't ignore that there is a degree of collectivist ideological poison in the well of the MRM, and that many of them are just as likely to wear a victimhood-skin jacket as other identitarian experience-thieves.
Way too many posts on this thread are filling up my email box. You people are seriously giving me a headache. I'm losing interest in responding.
23 Jan 2017, 10:19 pm
