The Men's Rights Movement

[Ken B]

RationalWiki

I know nothing about Devlin, and care little, but I know RationalWiki. It is not a trustworthy source. And I say this as a a fairly assertive atheist.

[Ken B]

I've read the opening paragraphs, which seemed quite fishy, so I checked who the guy is. And yeah, I don't have time to read through racist rants.

First, I did not read the article and won't. But this is remarkable. You read the start. It was not, per your description, racist. Just "fishy". I can understand that reaction, I have had it myself about things. So you googled the guy to see what's up. Been there, done that; before investing a lot of time in something fishy this is not surprising.  And you decided on that basis to stop reading. With you so far; been there, done that. But then you call it, unread, a "racist rant."  Sorry, no. Not a contribution to debate. AND you imply something about other members liking a "racist rant".

It's sad you guys find trash like this worthwhile

Calling stuff you've never read a "racist rant" so you can make insinuations about posters here you disagree with? That kind of trash? Yes that kind of trash is sad.

[Purusha]

I know nothing about Devlin, and care little, but I know RationalWiki. It is not a trustworthy source. And I say this as a a fairly assertive atheist.

Their atheist+ article is certainly a hoot.

[Jo498]

I have not read the whole thing and do not care about the guy and the program of the "manosphere" (a ridiculous name that shows they are mostly uneducated proles, it should be "androsphere"). But it can hardly be denied that what he describes on the first few pages has been more or less standard morality with respect to the relations of the sexes in virtually all cultures, all ideologies and also "common sense" until about 50 years ago or so.
(It also agrees with biological and anthropological findings; the only people who fundamentally disagree are WEIRDs (http://hci.ucsd.edu/102b/readings/WeirdestPeople.pdf) since the mid-20th century).

[Florestan]

it can hardly be denied that what he describes on the first few pages has been more or less standard morality with respect to the relations of the sexes in virtually all cultures, all ideologies and also "common sense" until about 50 years ago or so.
(It also agrees with biological and anthropological findings; the only people who fundamentally disagree are WEIRDs (http://hci.ucsd.edu/102b/readings/WeirdestPeople.pdf) since the mid-20th century).

Exactly. Excellent article that one, thank you very much for the link.

[ibanezmonster]

I have not read the whole thing and do not care about the guy and the program of the "manosphere" (a ridiculous name that shows they are mostly uneducated proles, it should be "androsphere"). But it can hardly be denied that what he describes on the first few pages has been more or less standard morality with respect to the relations of the sexes in virtually all cultures, all ideologies and also "common sense" until about 50 years ago or so.
(It also agrees with biological and anthropological findings; the only people who fundamentally disagree are WEIRDs (http://hci.ucsd.edu/102b/readings/WeirdestPeople.pdf) since the mid-20th century).

That first paragraph was... 

That's why even though it's good to be accepting of other cultures, there's a line to be drawn. You can't just say, "ah, child rape, it's accepted in their culture, so it's A-okay if it's them!"

[Ken B]

It keeps growing
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3137441/New-police-probe-child-sex-attacks-Rotherham-identified-300-abuse-suspects-far.html

[ibanezmonster]

I came across this. So incredibly stupid and condescending at the same time.

So the girl is a feminist because she is called out for her sexism. Brilliant.

So if I joined the MRA and said that I only cared about men, that isn't sexist? (in the traditional sense of the word, not the new SJW version where it is literally impossible to be sexist against men or racist against white people)

[Ken B]

I came across this. So incredibly stupid and condescending at the same time.

So the girl is a feminist because she is called out for her sexism. Brilliant.

So if I joined the MRA and said that I only cared about men, that isn't sexist? (in the traditional sense of the word, not the new SJW version where it is literally impossible to be sexist against men or racist against white people)

http://www.thesocialmemo.org/2015/06/univ-of-wi-releases-list-of.html?showComment=1435357512988

[Jo498]

"Everyone can succeed" is wrong (unless one takes a very weak and vague meaning of "success"), but it is not racist. And to occasionally state wrong things is a basic human freedom, I think. There is nothing wrong with being wrong as long as one strives to get to the truth...

[amw]

part of the reason this comic comes across as stupid is because the original meaning of 'feminism' has more or less disappeared.

Feminism is not about 'equality', it is a movement to liberate girls and women from male supremacy. If you're only interested in equality, I guess you can make your own movement or something.

[Florestan]

Feminism is not about 'equality', it is a movement to liberate girls and women from male supremacy.

It i a movement ·"of bullshit, by bullshit, for bullsshit". 

[Purusha]

I'm just going to live this one here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3141158/A-flawed-accuser-Investigation-academic-hounded-Nobel-Prize-winning-scientist-job-reveals-troubling-questions-testimony.html

Bravo feminists, bravo indeed. You can tell the west is really going towards the right direction when our finest minds are easily driven out of a job by idiotic ideological harpies. So long western world, and thanks for all the fish. Right?

[ibanezmonster]

part of the reason this comic comes across as stupid is because the original meaning of 'feminism' has more or less disappeared.

Feminism is not about 'equality', it is a movement to liberate girls and women from male supremacy. If you're only interested in equality, I guess you can make your own movement or something.

Cool, interesting. So you don't see why I could have an issue about a social movement having "meh" attitude toward equality (treating people the same regardless of genetic makeup)?

The new feminism/social justice cult is basically a perversion of what I believe, which I'd say is the status quo (egalitarianism). (If you consider 60% are in support of something like gay marriage, I think it would be safe to say the majority of society isn't sexist or racist, considering both movements are older).

Where I'm coming from is this: I almost feel personally insulted the one time some old white guy said something racist about black people. He wasn't even joking. He's basically insulting friends and family. And I would also be angry if he said something sexist. Where the social justice movement perverts this is by making that old racist white redneck representative of white people in general. Straight white men today are still the oppressor, even if most aren't racist/sexist/homophobic.

And they get "privilege" all wrong. Wealth plays a far greater factor than anything else (besides disability) when it comes to this.

Male supremacy really isn't a thing any more. For every disadvantage a female may have in western society, I can match that with a disadvantage a male may have. Actually, anyone could if they just thought for a second and looked up some statistics.

[mc ukrneal]

Male supremacy really isn't a thing any more. For every disadvantage a female may have in western society, I can match that with a disadvantage a male may have. Actually, anyone could if they just thought for a second and looked up some statistics.

What would the list of disadvantages look like for both?

[The Six]

Bold statement, there. I'd also like to see this list.

[Jo498]

top 5% or so of jobs, wealth, power and influence
men >>> women (this is a moot point for the 85% of us who will never come close to those positions but it seems the major point of many feminist discussions)

homelessness, suicides, violent deaths, work-related injuries and deaths, incarceration rates, school dropouts (say, bottom third or so of educational achievement)
men >>> women (most of this might be also moot for most of us in the "middle" 30% or so of society)

still
health and life expectancy
women > men (even for the middle class, AFAIK)

[Jo498]

Let me add that I do NOT believe that these things are caused by a sinister feminist conspiracy against men. Most of the causes are biological (e.g. tendency risky behavior by young men, different distributions of IQ and related factors for males/females etc.) and social/political/economical factors (e.g. less hard, dirty and dangerous work that is decently paid, more white/pink collar jobs) that are not the "fault" of individuals or particular social movements.
(E.g. men of course also perpetrate more violent crimes than women so it is, up to point, "their own fault" that more of them are also victims of violence and/or end up in jail.)
Still, they are hardly ever mentioned and even less recognized as disadvantages or unfairness.

[amw]

Male supremacy really isn't a thing any more.

1 in 4 women is a victim of sexual violence as opposed to 1 in 33 men. (Oh and 0.6% to 3% of rape allegations are false—that's my h/t to the topic of the thread. And between 40% and 60% of college men surveyed would force someone else into sex if they could get away with it. No thanks to 'men's rights', sorry)
Women are paid less than men (~75% of men's pay in the same job for white women, ~65% for women of colour)
More men than women in pretty much every position of authority or wealth (ceos, politicians, lawyers etc)
Men commit 90%+ of all violent crime.
Women are one-and-a-half times more likely to be victims of domestic violence. (And many of the male 'victims' of domestic violence are attacked in self-defense.)
The traditional family unit exploits women's domestic and reproductive labour without pay.
Female children are disproportionately targeted by human traffickers, compared to males.
Female elders are disproportionately poor and at risk of violence, compared to males.
Entire industries (prostitution and pornography) exist to facilitate the rape of women to serve male interests. (89% of women in prostitution are not there by choice.)
Women are held to stricter beauty standards than men, and with more severe consequences if they fail.
Women's beauty is considered of primary importance, and invariably addressed, no matter what their actual job is
Women's reproductive rights are more strictly regulated by the state than those of men.
Female-dominated fields are paid less and held in lower esteem than male-dominated ones across time and culture (eg when computer science was female-dominated it was much less prestigious and affluent than it was once it became male-dominated)
Female celebrities and public figures are disproportionately targeted for abuse, harassment and threats
Suicide is the leading cause of death for adolescent girls
etc

This is a very short and non-exhaustive list. If you're really interested in finding sources for these stats and critically examining your own views, you can do the research yourself. If you're an entitled fuckboy who doesn't give a shit, you can just say 'well you can't PROVE that' or 'here's another statistic that is different, checkmate obama' or toss off a smartass one-liner. The point of these statistics is not so we can look at it mathematically and say 'ok, so if we change things so that 50% of all Xs are women, we're good' or whatever, it is to demonstrate that there is a problem with how people think. These are cultural problems, they are not inherent to human beings or some bullshit like that.

Anyway I think that's enough derail. I leave y'all to your MRA thread, good luck with... whatever it is you're trying to do

[Purusha]

There are no differences between the sexes. Therefore, any difference in outcome between men and women, whether in good or bad, is purely due to oppression.

Except there ARE in fact differences between the sexes, and your entire argument is build upon a fundamental lie. And this is really the essence of "feminism", at least at this point.