More from a previously mentioned thread.Since my comments on YouTube frequently and quietly vanish, I save them here for posterity. I invite your conversation and corrections should you have any.The more I listen to feminists, the more limited their arguments seem to be. The greatest part are essentially based on ignorance of what the men’s rights movement is about.
I think that it’s reasonable that by the end of 2014, that I should be able to list every foundational “argument” used by feminists against men’s rights activism.
I note, incidentally, that in almost every single case, when I do a rebuttal comment like this one, that if it remains, it is rarely answered. I guess that there are three causes. The first, my interlocutor is simply to lazy to reply. Second, they’ve actually heard a counter argument and are flustered that their assertions can be so easily rebutted and have no response. Third, they are copy-pasting to some tumblr blog deep in the underbelly of the internet while they and their ken lurch around the stone, waving bone clubs and screeching about it like a pack of primeval monkeys discussing it amongst their peers.
Today’s easy to grasp discussion is with +denial1385
“Look back since the beginning of recorded history. Look at the various struggles that involved other groups, other than males, and what they were fighting against. The males are usually the dominants in society.”
You need to do the following: define “dominance” and demonstrate that it was “usually” so. Have you actually done the research going back to the classical era and beyond, into the domain of anthropology to determine whether this is true or not, or have you merely accepted someone’s word for it? What you will find overall is the following: most cultures have had a blend of gender equality, where men held sway and influence in the public eye, and women have typically held influence behind the scenes. Women have, overall, across history and cultures, generally held an equivalent amount of influence. You need to refine your distinctions.
“The females are subservient, or in a lower position.”
See above, and offer evidence that matches the scope of your claim.
“Women were not able to vote until LAST CENTURY. Men have been voting this whole time.”
This is a very provincial point of view. Men AND Women could not vote in Western Democratic societies. Landholders–male or female–could.
“Women still earn 25% less than men in 2013. Not because they don’t get the same training or achieve similar milestones.”
This is not so. The following claim that “women earn X% less than men” has been debunked for a number of years. When all elements are factored in, women make the equivalent of men, and never-married women even come out ahead of never-married men.
“Case in point: Lily Ledbetter.”
Case in point: the law has changed. And is enforced.
“When you throw in a racial component, white men have it better than men of color in America.”
So do white women, and so do black women. Then it’s white men, then black men.
“In Africa, black men have it better than black women. The same generally applies everywhere, there is a class/ race hierarchy depending on who’s the majority in population and who’s in majority in government.”
This assertion, as is most of your assertions, is unfounded in fact. The statement “has it better” is utterly meaningless. Why not say that the Chinese eat “better” food than Koreans?
“Is this concept hard to grasp?”
It is an easy concept to grasp, which is why most people seem to. What is more difficult, if not impossible, is to demonstrate it’s factual accuracy.
“The women want the same level playing field, as do the people of color or non-conformist gender.”
The playing field is not level for anybody. Not men, not women, not whites, not blacks, not tall, short, thin, fat, straight, gay, left or right handed.
“If this concept completely escapes you, you should learn more about privilege.”
May I recommend that you actually think about what privilege is? I’ve gone over this a number of times in this thread alone. The notion of “privilege”, as feminists employ it fails because of the following reason: feminists attend to the advantages of Group A, while ignoring their disadvantages, while ignoring the advantages of Group B and ignoring their disadvantages.
“When you’re in a bubble, all you see is the world from within that bubble; when you pop the bubble and look at the world, it looks different than from within that bubble. “
The bubble has a name: gynocentric feminism. It is an empty and vapid ideology. I will offer you the same out as I do others: abandon the non-sense of feminism and become a genuine egalitarian. You can still work on women’s issues, the only thing you have to lose is ignorance and the urge to express self-righteous moral condescension towards those whose side you know nothing about. You would lose it because you would have listened carefully and thought long and fairly about all sides, rather than from an ideological bubble.
“Until you search yourself and your soul to critically appreciate what privilege you might have, especially as a white male in America,”
What you appear to fail to appreciate is that souls and privilege have nothing to do with the issue, they are a non-sequiture based on thoughtless ideology. Having equivalent rights and obligations in law is the issue.
“you will keep fighting for MEN’S rights, something that does not exist because it is the DE FACTO norm.”
You don’t appear to understand what a right is. I recommend perusing a legal dictionary. First, a right is a right. Rights are not sexed. Some groups of people enjoy rights that others don’t have. A challenge: name me a right in law that a man has that is not currently available to women in North America. On the other hand, while women are fighting to maintain their reproductive rights from religio-conservatives, consider that that men have no reproductive rights at all.
“Being an MRA is like fighting for inclusion of the English language in the American culture, or for more men to be allowed to fight in the UFC.”
Again, another unfounded assertion and an invalid simile that demonstrates that you have not though the issue though. Please, do take the time to find my many lengthy and detailed replies on this thread. Each might as well be an article for their length. You will find that I have addressed this point over and over, and as many do, you are merely parroting a conveniently sound-bite size narrative that bears no relation to the facts of reality.
“It’s a non-issue because its THE NORM.”
This is meaningless. It is not an issue, but many issues, of which you seem to remain completely ignorant of. If you are not, I challenge you to present an issue that Men’s Rights Activists are fighting for and provide an argument that invalidates it. May I recommend some basic research first? Search for “March 2013 Men’s Rights Statement”.
“If nothing else changes, men would have more rights than women, and white men would have more rights than all.”
Yet another unfounded assertion, a demonstration that you do not comprehend women’s issues, men’s issues, or apparently racial issues.
“The white man was not enslaved,”
Men and women of all colours have all been slaves, in various places and times.
“and does not face the same issues that people of color might.”
As non-whites might not face the same issues that white men might have. It is an unequal playing field for all, after all.
“And women were not and arguably, still are not, valued as equals.”
And again, another unfounded assertion.
“I would be surprised if one of you MRAs is still reading to this point, at which point, I congratulate you on your reading skills.”
And what do you think that condescension will do to change the world, persuade your interlocutor or add to your credibility?
“If you got this far, do you really still think that men are the oppressed minority in America, much less anywhere else except in fictional Amazonia?”
No men’s rights activist or advocate I have ever met has made this claim. I do, however, see that feminists use this strawman regularly. The men’s rights movement is NOT the inverse of feminism. We do not claim that men are oppressed, even less “more oppressed” (please look up the definition of the word “oppressed”). We claim that a certain number of issues in politics, law and culture are unfair to men, and that they need redressing.
“MEN ARE MORE OPPRESSED THAN WOMEN? Read that out loud. MEN ARE MORE OPPRESSED THAN WOMEN.”
We’ve already addressed this feminist strawman.
“If they are not more oppressed, the question is are they equally yoked, or are women at a disadvantage.”
This is simply, a thoughtless question. What make you think that there’s value in determining whether one is more or less advantaged or disadvantaged? For the love of all that is good, let go of the feminist presupposition of class warfare, of us and them, and pay attention to what matters: the issues themselves. Deal with them, and move on. That’s what we MRA’s are doing.
“Read up on suffrage and look up what Ledbetter’s case was about.”
Been there, done that.
“Look at who the onus falls on in rapes and abortions, and who has most say and least repercussion.”
Ignoring the absolute lack of content in your previous sense, if we pretend that any meaning can be drawn from it, the answer is: we have. And this is why people like me are speaking out–to people such as yourself and the reader of these comments.;
“Look at the sexualization of men in those Hanes commercials or the beer commercials. Those slutty men. Those studly women.”
If you want to bring up media, notice that while women are sexualized, men are judged by performance. Recall my comments regarding privilege.
“TL:DR? You’re an ASS. Shut the front door.?”
If by this you mean “please take the time read carefully, and to think about what is being said”, I very much agree.
If this is merely an encapsulation of your whole comment, you’ve demonstrated ignorance, hypocrisy, condescension and thoughtlessness throughout.
Please pick which of these two options best applies.