Top products from r/MensRights

We found 226 product mentions on r/MensRights. We ranked the 576 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/MensRights:

u/STEM_logic · 4 pointsr/MensRights

To unequivocally debunk the feminist myth would take an entire book, which would require years to research. You're going to have to be very neutral and balanced and as fact-orientated as possible, which most mrm stuff imo falls short of. "Positive discrimination" and false accusations are what feminists WANT you to complain about - not that they're not valid complaints, but things like the gender empathy/victimhood gap, men's lives being valued less, maternal superiority, male moral inferiority etc. which fit into traditionalism and can be put forward as the other side of the coin are much better imo.

Janice Fiamengo's youtube series "The Fiamengo File" (Season 1, Season 2) is a much watch (she's also coincidentally an English proffessor). Her video : "what's wrong with women's studies" is also very good (this lecture was protested, had fire alarms pulled etc.).

Christina Hoff Sommers' channel "The Factual Feminist" is also very good. These videos (1, 2 by Karen Straughan are good, but her other stuff tends to be more sensationalist.

As for books, Warren Farrell's "The myth of male power" and Roy Baumeister's "Is there anything good about men" are essential reading. This paper (on sexual repression) also by Roy Baumeister is also extremely important.

This article touches on a lot about the childcare/domestic vs workplace spheres, also this one on maternal gatekeeping - which you could could add domestic gatekeeping in aswell - basically that a lot of women still see the traditionally female realm as "theirs" (despite wanting into the traditional male realm) and although they probably say they want equality, in reality they want a helpmate rather than a full equal, taking on a managerial/directorial role to which a lot of men might react to by dragging their heels (not that some guys aren't genuinely selfish) - things like fathers looking after their kids being described as "babysitting" tie into this. Of course guys in these situations have very little preparation for this because feminism has resulted in a situation where for decades egalitarian roles have been pushed with a positive encouraging message for women and girls and a negative shaming message for men and boys, as a gain in power for women and girls and a loss in power for men and boys. It has also resulted in tons of messages of traditionally "masculine" things being reconciled with positive/aspirational feminine social value, while the reverse has not been the case remotely near as much (I've only ever seen housework being portrayed as compatible with positive/aspirational masculine value once - in movie Don Jon).

I'd write you a second post about gender roles (and the context they need to be looked at within) throughout history and in the developing world, but there's a lot and I'm tired. Maybe tomorrow morning!

u/NiceIce · 1 pointr/MensRights

>Webster has the true definition of feminism.

Webster (and other dictionaries) have the claimed, dictionary definition of feminism, which is not even remotely close to how feminists really think and act.

>My dad is most certainly not a doormat. He and my mother treat each other as equals.

A man supporting feminism is like a black person supporting the KKK, or a jew supporting the nazis.

>Seriously, don't you see what you're doing?

I most certainly do.

>How do you feel when you tell someone you're a Men's Rights activist and they automatically assume you think this makes you better than women? You know that's not true.

If those women are feminists, then yes, I AM better than them. The same is true of male feminists as well.

>So why apply a similar stigma to a word that is, at its heart, the same as what you believe?

I am an antifeminist. Feminism is antithetical to my beliefs.

Feminism is a hate movement that for half a century has been Spreading Misandry, Legalizing Misandry, and Sanctifying Misandry. It has been actively waging a War Against Men and sadly even a War against Boys.

u/Hamakua · 3 pointsr/MensRights

>I assure you I am not trying to troll anyone.

This assurance is empty as those people who have attempted to troll have also made the same exact claim. "I am not a liar" said the liar to the judge.

>If I am reading this correctly you believe that anyone showing some reticence toward the content of the general conversation is a troll?

No. Some of the best conversation and debate comes from people who strongly believe something that is counter to what your refer to as the "general conversation". That "general conversation" has actually been galvanized over the last decade. Through thousands of posts much like your own.

>You're dissuading introspection by claiming it to be external meddling?

You accidentally a question mark. The above is an accusatory statement veiled in a raised voice at the end.

>When I found this subreddit I was very happy to know that it existed as I have long been an advocate for male advocacy. After reading through it for the past few weeks I've become increasingly concerned that this movement may be heading in the wrong direction. I think that this community is making the same mistake that the feminists have made: there is a loud, radical element that is guiding the conversation toward the absurd.

Explain the absurdity to which you refer please.

>We need to learn from that and focus ourselves on the big issues that face men, not devolving into revisionist history or insane theories on gender relations. When we do that we are no better than those who vilify men.

Don't speak about revisionist history

Don't speak about revisionist history

Don't speak about revisionist history

Don't speak about revisionist history

>The point of any rights group is to ensure that equality is protected. Equality.

Equality of what? Outcome? Opportunity?

>The problem with feminism is that it has whipped itself into such a froth that many of its adherents have lost sight of that.

Since at least the 1960's feminism, in the "Majority of power and money" feminism, has continually used men as boogymen and scapegoats. This is nothing "new" (unless you see "new" as in something that happened in the last 50 years)

> I don't want us to do that. If anything we should be working with feminists not against them; hashing out a new social contract that allows for an increased level of egalitarianism.

Equality of what, Opportunity or outcome? Feminism dismantled the previous social contract with out absolving men of their side. Men still have all the responsibilities of the previous social contract while women do not. -This is not me saying we should revert to a previous social contract, simply pointing out "Feminism" has no motivation to give men anything and those things that Feminism has secured for women has often come at the detriment and cost of men.

>That being said I feel that this movement needs to have second element to it: it needs to be about improving ourselves.

I have a website for you, google "the good men project" you are their demographic. Enjoy.

>Many of the things that the MRM is against are intra-male e.g. circumcision, the disposablility of male life, workplace deaths, etc. We need to ignite a worldwide conversation on what it means to be a man in the modern world.

Patently false, other than circumcision, everything else has been turned into a zero sum game by Feminism.

Disposability of life... in relation to what?

Workplace deaths, in relation to what?

>We need to figure out how we can strive for a more equal society and still maintain our dignity as men. So, I implore you brothers to take a step back and take the objective view. A measured, rational approach will help give us credence and silence the nay sayers.

You are naive in your experience and knowledge of Feminism, how much it is responsible for, and the power it wields to enact change, as well as how much its vested interests are in opposition to men wholesale.

u/actanonverba8 · 18 pointsr/MensRights

Andrew, I would like you to please consider doing something. Please consider taking all this wonderful knowledge you have about this "14 times" myth and attempting to get it published in a major periodical.

I think your best bet is the shotgun-approach--sending the information to multiple people and hoping one or more will run with it. I think you should consider sending your information to all of the following (it´s just copy/pasting after the first one):

  • Christina Hoff Sommers. She´s a brilliant writer who eats feminist myths for breakfast. She publishes with several popular media sources including The Atlantic and Time magazine. Both her and her assistant´s emails are on the page (to the right of her photo). I would email both.

  • Barbara Kay. Not afraid to criticize feminists. Writes about a variety of issues. Publishes in the National Post.

  • Dr. Helen Smith. Her contact email is: [email protected] Dr. Smith is very sympathetic to men and boys. She normally publishes at Pajamas Media.

  • Send a letter to the editor in to the Toronto Star (the newspaper you linked to here). The email address is: [email protected] Your letter probably won´t get published, but it just might. It shouldn´t take long, mostly just copy/pasting what you´ve already done.

    Well, I would like to thank you for your excellent post and I hope you´ll consider what I´ve proposed. Keep up the good work.
u/[deleted] · 3 pointsr/MensRights

> One thing that has puzzled me over the years of focusing on the musical part of music is the gender difference. It is most obvious in jazz, which is in some respects the most advanced form of improvisational, instrumental music. When I was young and poor, I spent hours thumbing through the discount bins of albums, and I learned quite early that if the artist featured on the album was a woman, it almost inevitably meant she was a singer. A man on the cover might mean anything—guitar, sax, trumpet, piano. Some men sing too. Men do it all. But I’d say well over 90% of female jazz albums are by female singers. And even on those albums, most of the music was played by men, who worked their instruments in the background while the woman sang.

> It’s not that women can’t play musical instruments. If you look at classical music, there are plenty of women who play, including at the top levels of ability. At the entry levels, such as the music schools where my daughter takes lessons, one sees more girls than boys, and they show just as much talent if not more. Nationwide, more girls than boys take music lessons. Women can and do play all manner of musical instruments superbly. They just don’t play jazz.

> What sets jazz apart is of course the creative challenge of improvising. The person who is playing has to make up what to play, moment by moment.

> Is the deficit really in creativity? After or alongside improvising, the other most creative job in music is composing. Here again, men predominate. Women play music far more than they compose or improvise it. Creativity really seems to be where the difference lies.

> One possible explanation is that women aren’t creative. For a time, the pattern of female absence in composition and improvisation led me to think it was a lack of creative ability among women. But the data from my own field have pushed me away from that view. When psychologists give tests of creativity, the males and females score about the same. Women have apparently just as much basic, general creative aptitude as men.

> Why, then, don’t women do more creative things in music? Here is where the Imaginary Feminist might be tempted to introduce the standard arguments about oppression and socialization. Women aren’t encouraged to be creative, or something like that. Pop feminism has taught us all to think along those lines. This is the formula we saw in Chapter 1: if a difference can’t be explained on the basis of males having more innate ability, then it must be that men have oppressed and stifled women.

> Maybe jazz music and the world of composition is a macho culture that won’t allow females to participate. But this seems implausible. I have known many jazz musicians, and they aren’t remotely macho. On the contrary, they tend to be quiet, nerdy introverts. They’ll play with any- body who can keep up. Most bands I knew, including all the ones I was in, were desperate for a decent bass player in particular and would have taken anyone, even a foul-smelling gorilla who helped itself to others’ food and peed on the floor, if it would have been willing and able to play the music. The prejudice or oppression argument is hard to sustain. Jazz broke racial boundaries long before the mainstream society had even made up its mind as to whether integration was a good idea. When a talented female instrumentalist has shown up, such as the late Emily Remler, she was very popular and never lacked for musical partners.

> I do think there is an explanation. But it’s not where we have looked yet. This chapter is going to suggest looking for gender differences in a very different place.

> ... By now, you’ve probably guessed the answer to the question that started this chapter, namely why don’t women play jazz. I suspect it has little or nothing to do with a lack of ability or a gender difference in creativity. It’s because they don’t really want to. That doesn’t mean women are actively opposed to it. They merely are not as driven as men are to perform this sort of demanding, creative music.

> I suppose the stock explanation for any such difference is that women were not encouraged, or were not appreciated, or were discouraged from being creative. That’s certainly what the Imaginary Feminist will tell us. As usual, when one rejects the idea that men have ability than women, one is left with the explanation that men must have oppressed women.

> But I don’t think this stock explanation fits the facts very well. In the 19th century in America, middle-class girls and women played piano far more than men. Yet all that piano playing failed to result in much creative output. There were no great women composers, no new directions in style of music or how to play, or anything like that. All those female pianists entertained their families and their dinner guests but did not seem motivated to create anything new.

> Meanwhile, around the same time in history, black men in America created blues and then jazz, both of which changed the way the world experiences music. By any measure, those black men, mostly just emerging from slavery, were far more disadvantaged than the middle-class white women. Even getting their hands on a musical instrument must have been considerably harder. And remember, I’m saying that the creative abilities are probably about equal. But somehow the men were driven to create something new, more than the women.

Roy Baumeister - Is there anything good about men?

u/inthemud · 3 pointsr/MensRights

>I think what I'm saying is that even if the man has to pay a lot of money in child support, isn't he still getting the better end of the deal?

It is not about paying money. It is about having the most important thing in your life taken away from you and given to someone else. It is about having restrictions on seeing or being involved in your children's lives. It is about having a monthly tax, a daddy tax if you will, that if you do not pay your credit is ruined, your driver's license will be taken away, any business license revoked, any hunting license revoked, any other government issued license or certification revoked, liens put on your bank accounts and all personal property, and you will be jailed until you pay. And the amount of this monthly tax is determined by a lot of people who have a vested interest in getting you to pay as much as possible. This tax will most likely be way more than you are able to pay and have a life. So, no, for most men, even the ones who would prefer option #2 (which there are not many that I know of), it is by far not the better end of the deal.

Since you do not have children it is hard to grasp how special they are to parents. I know because I did not realize until after I had a child how much they mean. But let me try and put it into somewhat better perspective. Imagine you had a car that you loved more than anything. Imagine the government taking your car and giving it to someone else. They tell you that you can only drive this car every other weekend. The person who owns the car now can paint it any color they want, put any rims on it they want, do anything to it that they want and there is nothing that you can do about it. Oh, and the government expects you to pay the payments on the car. And not just the payments that you would normally have made but three times the normal payment amounts. And plus you have to pay for the insurance and all maintenance. And whoever has your car can let anyone they want drive the car and do whatever they want to it as well. If you do not agree to these terms or you cannot pay three times the amount of the payments, you go to jail until you do.

>Also, regarding reproductive rights, is it not yet possible for a father or a father-to-be to contractually sign away parental obligations--including child support?

No. Every father is required to pay for their children. Period. There is no getting out of it. Even if you are not the biological father you will have to pay child support if the courts say so. Even if you sign an agreement with your ex, the family courts will overrule it and assign what they want for child support. There is absolutely no way to not pay child support.

The family court system in America, and most developed nations, is predatory and perverse. They use children and the excuse of protecting them as a way to extort money from parents and control them. None of it is fair or just and "the best interest of the child" is only a term that is used to screw parents out of their rights. Read Taken Into Custody by Dr Stephen Baskerville to get a better grasp of the system.

u/TomwaIvory · 2 pointsr/MensRights

I will certainly do so, just give me a bit to get it all together.

A great place to start is how feminists diverted funds for shovel ready jobs (The recession in America hit those most, majorly affecting men) into jobs in health care. This negatively impacted men and the industries they work in.

I'll go grab some more later, but it's 1AM.


Thought of another one:

Amanda Childress has this to say about Men in higher education:
"Why could we not expel a student based on an allegation?" Childress asked at the panel, before noting that while 2 to 8 percent of accusations are unfounded (but not necessarily intentionally false), 90 to 95 percent are unreported, committed by repeat offenders, and intentional. "It seems to me that we value fair and equitable processes more than we value the safety of our students. And higher education is not a right. Safety is a right. Higher education is a privilege."


I'd like to add Ezra Klein (Mr. Feminist says "False Accusations are Good") and Jessica Valenti (Ms. "I bath in male tears") to the list as well.

Ezra Klein:
Jessica Valenti:


Or those in the IMF who think women should pay less in taxes than men:
"IMF staff estimates show that cutting labor income taxes paid by women by 5 percentage points would increase the GDP level by 1¾ percentage points, for a fiscal cost of ½ percentage point of GDP. "

A good book to read:


"Schyman left the Left Party in 2004 and in 2005 co-founded Feminist Initiative"

"In October 2004, Schyman together with other MEPs of the Left Party proposed before the Riksdag, a national assessment of the cost of men's violence towards women; furthermore they demanded that the state fund women's shelters.[5] The proposal attracted wide attention, with the media calling it a "man tax.""

Edit5: (I think I edit this too much)
I'd also like to bring up the fact that feminists have repeatedly attached men's rights speeches.

Can you show me one instance where an MRA has stood outside a feminist conference shouting? Or pulled a fire alarm to prevent them from speaking?

u/shloopyy · 1 pointr/MensRights

You'll have to elaborate. Are you suggesting that men are biologically capable of creating a society where all benefits accrue to themselves? Perhaps you could find me a society where men live longer, where females fight the wars and do the dirty work, etc. Under patriarchies, for every alleged privilege that males have there is an equal and opposite female privilege. The biggest privilege females have in patriarchal societies is to have their lives valued more than males. This is because males have a biological instinct to protect females (due to such factors as neoteny and sexual reproduction). Studies confirm that both males and females value female life more than male life. For example one study asked people whom they would rather push off a bridge: an innocent man or woman. Both sexes chose the man. This does not mean that women can't be "oppressed", it just means that no society in history has been set up to the exclusive benefit of men. Indeed if we consider being alive as the greatest privilege, then females have been the privileged sex in every society in history. They have also been privileged in plenty of other ways, and indeed historian Martin Van Creveld went so far as to call women the privileged sex.

There is no evidence that women as a group have anywhere near as much empathy for men as vice versa. You can see it clearly for example in the video of Sharon Osborne joking about a woman castrating her husband for cheating; the all-female audience goes wild with applause. Could you imagine a room full of men celebrating the act of an innocent woman having her vagina carved out with a knife? Here's Janice Fiamengo discussing the empathy gap.

In the absence of evidence that women have a significant degree of empathy toward men, we do have evidence that women feel hostility and resentment toward men (again, as a group). It's called feminism. And to answer the final point: yes, we also have evidence that women are capable of creating a society where all benefits accrue solely to females.

In 2013 archeologists uncovered evidence of an ancient matriarchy in Peru.

>This find makes it clear that women didn't just run rituals in this area but governed here and were queens of Mochica society," said project director Luis Jaime Castillo, according to the Associated Free Press.

>"It is the eighth priestess to be discovered," he added. "Our excavations have only turned up tombs with women, never men."

What did their society look like? Well, the men were forced into mortal combat and the losing side slaughtered. Men were essentially slaves. There were no benefits at all for the males. The society quickly collapsed.

As Karen Straughan put it, "in a patriarchy it's women and children first; in a matriarchy it will be women, children and the woman's luggage first."

u/SLAPtheSASSYbitch · 5 pointsr/MensRights

Men do not "get paid" more, they choose to EARN more on a playing field that is tilted toward women. Yes, men are more than 17 times more likely to die at work. They constitute a similar percentage of workplace accidents that do not result in death. Yet they take far fewer sick days, make fewer insurance claims, including worker's compensation, and so on (relative to events), meaning women receive a disproportionate share of employer-funded healthcare (government healthcare also, but that's another story), while doing considerably less than a proportional share of the work. Consider the research done at the University of Washington in the Department of Vocational Rehab. If a worker takes paid time off for "carpal tunnel syndrome" there is an overwhelming and statistically significant prediction you can make about the worker: It's a woman. All of those paid days off are funded primarily by men, and enjoyed primarily by women. If perquisites are distributed in this way, one must consider that if women's cash earnings are 2% more per hour, their total compensation, including perks, is much more.

Add to that the fact that women take fewer entrepreneurial risks. While they control more capital than men, they like bonds, not starting new businesses. Of course this moves the average earnings of men up relative to women, but does not indicate they are victims of discrimination. In fact, it could be said to indicate that they take an equal or greater share of the benefits of living in a country where men increase the GDP, pay taxes that provide good schools, safe air travel, and medical research, but they are unwilling to contribute equally in sacrifice and risk.

See this landmark books for a deep investigation of why men don't merely receive more in wages and salaries, but why men EARN more in wages and salaries: Then teach your children the meaning of equality.

u/problem_redditor · 2 pointsr/MensRights

"The Privileged Sex" by Martin van Creveld is a great read about men's issues.

EDIT: I haven't personally read this one, but a lot of people seem to say "Is There Anything Good About Men" by Roy Baumeister is a good book on the topic as well.

u/DaneWhitman · 2 pointsr/MensRights

Welcome aboard. Everyone with a serious interest in men's issues is welcome, all races, religions, political beliefs, etc.

As far as information, I would recommend Warren Farrell's The Myth of Male Power. It can be found pretty cheaply.

u/roharareddit · 3 pointsr/MensRights

A great book to read concerning the family courts is "Taken Into Custody" by Stephen Baskerville. He is widely regarded as an authority on the toppic.

Aslo, you may want to reach out to these guys. They are a great resource.

Good luch and knock em dead. I love it when students come here.

u/bankship · 5 pointsr/MensRights

> Throughout much of our history until recent times, men really did oppress women and hold them back. Actively.

Nah. Men have no desire to oppress their own mothers and daughters. They'd have to be a race of psychopaths. Certainly the average woman had it no worse than the average man.

Good book on the subject that debunks most feminist claims about history.

And no that isn't to claim that women didn't suffer discrimination. They did, as did men.

Here's a good post by Karen Straughan about first wave feminists. They didn't fight for equality either. Earnest Bax wrote The Legal Subjugation of Men in the 19th century.

>I'd really like to see Men's Rights groups find common ground with feminism

MRA's have been trying that for decades to no avail. Indeed feminist consistently oppose gender equality and attempts to help men and boys.

They would certainly be wise to change their tune, as the level of (entirely justified) animosity toward feminists is growing rapidly. If MRA's/gender egalitarians don't succeed then the far right will.

u/Dreamboe · 2 pointsr/MensRights

>I find it bewildering that 50 years ago, men were annoyed that women were allowed into the military, and now, men are angry because not enough women are dying in wars for it to be "fair".

Men don't want women in the military, at least those who are honest about it. Men in the military certainly don't want more women in the military, because it puts their lives at increased risk.

The reason MRA's bring up men being forced to fight and die in wars is to refute the bizarre notion that men have been "privileged" throughout history. In fact the average man was simply a disposable workhorse, and to the extent that one sex was privileged it was at least arguably females.. Personally I don't think either sex was really privileged, there was a fairly equal share of burdens.

>Assuming that's true (which I don't believe)

Feel free to refute the study in question. Right now you're simply being obstinate.

>Remember, a hundred years ago, women had a much larger negative fiscal impact because most couldn't get jobs.

Really? I wonder where all those factory girls came from?

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that women a hundred years ago were chomping at the bit to go inhale toxic fibers all day in a textile mill.

In fact, as Christina Hoff Sommers has noted and as should be plainly obvious, most women preferred domesticity. This remains true. Becoming a housewife is the new American dream for working women, and numerous studies have demonstrated that housewives are happier and healthier than those who have to work.

Ultimately you're missing the point. Most men probably wouldn't object to women receiving the majority of tax benefits -- they have shown over and over again that they value females before their very lives. What we're looking for is some degree of fairness and some degree of respect and appreciation for the benefits you accrue at our expense.

>I didn't ask how the percentages broke down.

You suggested male DV victims being arrested may be anomalous. I've now informed you that one in four is the percentage. If you want to learn more read the study. You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing rather than for improving your knowledge and (potentially) changing your viewpoint.

>One study.

Here we go again. More pointless arguing instead of simply conceding the point. How many studies would be sufficient? Here's another. At least feminists acknowledge the data and try to make excuses instead of denying reality.

>You're talking about replacing the entire criminal justice system, which means it's not a men's rights issue, it's a criminal justice issue.

It's both a men's rights issue and a criminal justice issue, because, you know, men are the ones being treated six times worse.

>Right, because I'm going to learn from a one-sided source. That's how we become smarter

Why not? I read feminist literature and occasionally I even learn something. In Ms. Straughan's case, her lecture is simply a recounting of the documented history of support or lack thereof by feminists for specific legislation. She demonstrates that feminists have consistently reinforced traditional gender dynamics, except in cases where such dynamics could potentially disadvantage women, and often, disturbingly, for the sole purpose of disadvantaging or otherwise harming men.

>like you guys, only better organized.

Better funded. There's a crucial difference. MRA's don't receive support by the likes of JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs, for example. Strange, since you'd think that in a "patriarchy" men's rights would be paramount.

>That's because all your heroes keep winding up in embarassing scandals.


>And yet like many, you'll remain passive about the behaviour of other MRAs (even the ones here in this subreddit), and permissive by extension.

On the contrary I constantly challenge right wing positions on this board and elsewhere (I frequently change usernames). I even managed to educate Karen Straughan about egalitarianism in hunter-gatherer bands. Ms. Straughan is actually capable of changing her mind, so she accepted the correction.

>You may just be the first MRA to say that. I've long-maintained that most people don't see any of the privilege talked about by celebrities and professional victims on the internet.

Really? MRA's are constantly talking about the absurdity of labeling white working class men "privileged." Especially when it comes from well-to-do gender studies professors.

At no point have I claimed women have it easy. Poor women suffer immeasurably more than rich men, and poor men suffer immeasurably more than rich women.

>I'm talking Civil Rights Movement era. Flower Child era. That stuff.

Right. After the invention of the pill and time saving devices in the home some women decided (falsely) that the grass was greener on the other side.

Men then obliged their demands. I fail to see how this disproves my point about gynocentrism.

>Meanwhile, Mens Rights had just started

Actually there was a men's rights movement in the late 19th century, and Earnest Belford Bax wrote The Fraud of Feminism in the early 20th.

It didn't exactly take off because unlike feminism, men's rights does not conform to our gynocentric instincts.

The male gender role is provider and protector. So naturally if women claim they are in distress men are going to try to fix it. Again, males have out-group bias toward females while the same is not true in reverse.

The MRA position is about a thousand times more difficult because we are fundamentally challenging gender roles. Men aren't all powerful. Women aren't all wonderful. And men need help.

>That didn't even convince me and I already support egalitarianism. Good luck, bud.

Thanks. I'll need it. I do in fact have faith that women will be able to learn to empathize with men just like men empathize with women.

It's equally likely, unfortunately, that there will be some sort of social collapse. We can already see its beginnings with the MGTOW phenomenon and misogynist nuts like Elliot Rodgers.

>Right, because women get all the good jobs and big responsibility.

They are 95% less likely to die on the job, so if not being killed counts then yes. Once again you are engaging in apex fallacy. The tiny number of men at the top are not representative of the 99%, nor do they try to privilege said 99%.

As for why, at the apex of society, men are more likely to hold those positions? Well most women are hypergamous, so men compete for status in order to attract a mate. It's not rocket science. A beautiful woman doesn't have to do anything but exist. Men have to earn status, so they devote more time and energy to work. Rich men start from a place of privilege, but the competition is also fierce at the top.

>I never really stuck myself to a label with any serious dedication, unless Trekkie is a label.

I'm both a women's rights advocate and a men's rights advocate and have no problem with either label. "Egalitarian" probably works best though, as it also explains my position on politics and economics.

u/HellstromC · 1 pointr/MensRights

> I think feminists' hangup with sharia is more likely attributed to their intersection with political correctness.

I think that's part of it. But let's be honest here. If the "patriarchy" were real then feminists would be in meltdown mode over the mere prospect of sharia law. Instead they're like "meh, who cares?"

I think that proves my point.

As for your argument that women also suffered under civilization, yes, we can agree. I didn't say that women lived on cloud 9, just that they are indeed privileged in their own way. Indeed an historian even wrote a book called The Privileged Sex. He was not referring to males.

u/lazernerd · 7 pointsr/MensRights

>A woman told me that the fields females pick to work in are paid less BECAUSE women dominate those fields.

I'd love to see her proof for this claim, because there is plenty to the contrary. I'll share with you the same sources I post when I see topics regarding the wage gap:


An Analysis of Reasons for the Disparity
in Wages Between Men and Women

Gender Pay Gap in the Federal Workforce Narrows as Differences in Occupation, Education, and Experience Diminish
The Gender Pay Gap - Have Women Gone As Far As They Can?


NCPA - The Wage Gap Myth
Forbes - It's Time That We End the Equal Pay Myth
AEI - A Quick Fix For The Gender Wage Gap
CBS News - The Gender Pay Gap is a Complete Myth
Trigger Alert Blog - The Almighty Wage Gap - A Comprehensive Analysis
Market Watch - The Gender Wage Gap is a Myth
AEI - The Gender Wage Gap Myth
Huffington Post - The Wage Gap Myth Exposed - By Feminists
Freakonomics - Goldin and Katz on the Male-Female Wage Gap
Real Clear Markets - [White House, Women's Wages, Myths] (


Straight Talk About The Wage Gap [3:00]
Do Women Earn Less Than Men? [4:00]
John Stossel - The Gender Pay Gap [10:36]
Why Men Earn More - The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap [1:16:11]
The Gender Wage Gap is a Myth [2:21]
Thomas Sowell - Gender Bias and Income Disparity: A Myth? [3:30]
The Gender Wage Gap Uses Bogus Statistics [4:45]
The Pay Inequality Myth: Women are More Equal Than You Think [2:37]


The Myth of the Male/Female Wage Gap by Thomas J. DiLorenzo [7:49]


Warren Farrell - Why Men Earn More

u/Bobsutan · 1 pointr/MensRights

good to know, wasn't aware of this. we'll see how long my posts last. My first post here:

> The three biggest problems I see facing kids in the US are:

> 1. Obesity
> 2. Lack of good parenting: the near-requirement that both parents work nowadays and/or dads being evicted through divorce
> 3. Horrid education system, especially for boys (due to Carol Gilligan's work; read War Against Boys for more info). This is being compounded by #2 above.

> Volunteering at shelters is important, doubly so for men so to set good role models and help challenge the sort of misandric fearmongering that leads to ads of a man simply holding a child's hand as something to call the police for. The more kids grow up knowing males aren't the enemy the better, which stands to reason since most authority figures (eg cops) are men. The last thing you want is to instill a fear of all things male/masculine in kids where they are afraid of strangers just because they're male.

> Also, the inverse of this is equally valid. A year or so ago a man saw a child walking alone and was afraid to help due to fear of being though he was a pedophile or something. Not long after the child was found dead, face down in a pond or pool. Sad that fearmongering happens like that, and if men are more proactive I think it can help change that mindset in little kids minds, and also do away with the cultural trope that 'all men are (potential) pedophiles'.

> Bottom line: the more kids are around grown men, especially when the men in their lives are in jail or on drugs or simply gone, the more complete their upbringing will be.

Speaking of which, WHAT happened to the thread of the picture of the man holding a kid's hand and it being an ad for a police hotline about how it "doesn't feel right"? That's the picture I was referencing and wanted to include the link.

u/IronJohnMRA · 200 pointsr/MensRights

Why yes, it looks like you're right:

N.B. This means any Amazon Prime subscriber can watch it for free.

Mods, this announcement might be worth making a sticky.

u/LucifersHammerr · 2 pointsr/MensRights

"Male privilege" is quite possibly the most idiotic concept ever created. Yeah, the sex that has spent all of history working and dying for the other is actually privileged! lol. Here is a good book about the actual privileged sex

If you want more stats, go nuts

u/_Baku · 1 pointr/MensRights

I too am an anarchist and believe in direct democracy.

Feminism is an authoritarian movement created by rich white women. It is designed to demonize men and boys.

Before you latch yourself to patriarchy theory you should check out Karen Straughan's videos. Or read some sensible books about the history of male/female power, like the Privileged Sex or The Myth of Male Power:

u/jolly_mcfats · 2 pointsr/MensRights

I think you do a good job highlighting the big issues. What grade level is this report for?

I don't know if you can get this from a library or something at this late stage, but you should really look at this book as a source. It contains functional definitions of misandry, and includes exhaustive criticism of the evolution of sitcoms and advertising as they relate to the portrayal of men. Also, the AVFM wiki is still pretty new, but the article on misandry is developing nicely. There is also a decent amateur youtube channel dedicated to the subject.

u/blueoak9 · 1 pointr/MensRights

> I hope that this language is not used that often, but I don't really follow pop feminism. I have read some theorists from the 70s and a bit later, but I didn't see any of this language being used. Regardless, if it is being used by anyone currently, I think your initial comment would suffice to have them realize the comparison is extremely insensitive.
It comes up regularly, but since you have the sense to avoid pop feminism, I can see how you wouldn't see it.

The offensiveness is not enough to stop the usage. It is just one more thing feminists of color have to put up with.

"I read a feminist piece once that was clearly written before the civil rights movement, where her complaints felt dwarfed by the fact that she was still able to rely on cheap, oppressive labor of black women."

Times changed, a long time ago. The Redstockings Manifesto (late 60s)specifically repudiated her good sense by insisting that gender was the fundamental oppression, and that all men oppress all women. that explicitly says that black men oppress white women.

"but it is about privilege due to wealth, not gender. "

Well the two are inseparable in this case because those women have access to that wealth only because of their gender. Only women can marry rich men, or could until recently.

"Finally, I fail to see where I expressed any historical delusions."

"Delusions" was too strong a word. The right word is inaccuracy:

u/TamidMT · 1 pointr/MensRights

Norah Vincent's book Self Made Man is high up on my reading list. In an interview, she said that she "ran smack up against the different between male and female sexuality ... Female is mental. It's up here [in the brain]." At 11:18, Norah "was surprised that many women had no interest in a soft, vulnerable man". "My prejudice", she said, "was that the ideal man was a woman in a man's body, and I learned 'no, that's really not it'. There are a lot of women out there who really want a manly man."

>Ultimately, Ned told most of his [female] dates that he was Norah. Many of the women reacted angrily, but usually just for a little while. Some women wanted to continue the relationship. [Heterosexual women] remained interested in pursuing something further. That's what I'm saying: [the difference] is all up here [in the brain] because they said "we connected, and there's something. I really like you, and I don't care." How many guys would do that? That's the different between male and female sexuality right there.

u/hopeless_case · 2 pointsr/MensRights

Here is a great essay on where gender roles come from, how the males ones are constricting, and why female roles were relaxed first:

And here is a book where the author expanded on the original essay:

u/yvaN_ehT_nioJ · 6 pointsr/MensRights

It's quite surprising. I just finished reading Spreading Misandry and though it was originally published in like 2000 (or shortly after) a lot of what it talks about either still rings true or has gotten worse. It takes a look at how pop-culture spreads misandrist ideas/values and how those came from certain circles of academia/marxism.

It's worth a read if for no other reason than to see how there were people talking about the same issues we worry about back in the 1990s. Pretty well referenced and has a decent chunk of the book just devoted to explaining why the two profs who wrote it included/talked about the issues they did.

u/Throwabanana69 · 3 pointsr/MensRights

The female has always been the privileged sex. That being said, I agree with you that the female is still the privileged sex.

u/7wap · 6 pointsr/MensRights

Wow, I'm floored. That woman came across better than any MRA I know. She's articulate, knows the issues, and isn't hateful. Does anyone know if her book is this good?

u/iainmf · 2 pointsr/MensRights

Please consider paying to see this movie to support Cassie Jaye.

I think Vimeo has it available in most countries

It's on Amazon as well

Also check itunes and Google play for your country.

u/neofool · 1 pointr/MensRights

The Nathanson and Young books, Spreading Misandry and Legalizing Misandry, are well worth reading. The books are well sourced and cited, free of emotional language and great overall the only issue you may have is that the authors claim they come close to be meeting academic standards but don't meet them.

u/yy222 · 3 pointsr/MensRights

> One thing that won't be mentioned in that book: women do not need to continually prove that they are women because their status as a woman cannot be stripped-away very easily and it simply isn't demanded of them.

Summa Genderratica

> A female needs to undergo a process of biological maturation in order to perform the feminine contribution to society, however this process is essentially automatic and is basically assumed to occur over time, with mensturation serving as a clear biological indicator of fitness to perform the task.

> With males, things are more tenuous. Proficiency or even ability to perform the male function, let alone perform it well, is not biologically guaranteed. Additionally, there is no single clear “he’s ready” indicator delivered by male biology.

> Whilst females “grow into” being women, males do not automatically grow into being “real men.” A young female just becomes a woman automatically, due to the innate properties of her biology. Her mensturation evidences her maturation. Her womanhood simply is. She is assumed to be gender-compliant and thus socially contributive by default.

> A young male has to demonstrate, through action, the ability to perform masculine tasks successfully. A young male must prove he has “grown up” and become a “real man.” Males are not assumed to be gender-compliant (and thus socially contributive) by default; by himself he is just another mouth to be fed by the work of “real men.” A man must validate his manhood by action, otherwise he is not a real man but rather a “boy” (i.e. immature, not-an-adult male).

> A gender-compliant person of either sex is seen as valuable to society (since they are acting in ways which conform to survivability-oriented norms). However, females are assumed to either be (or will be) gender-compliant; naturally infertile women are the exception rather than the rule and thus the assumption is that any given female is (or will be) capable of bearing children due to their biology.
As such, females are ascribed an innate value simply for being female. Females are seen as inherently cherishable because they are the incubators of the future.

> Males lack this. Their gender-compliance is not seen as an inevitable feature of their biological maturation but rather an ideal to live up to. Males neither are nor will become “real men” by default. As such, they have no innate value. The value of a man is exclusively contingent on the consequences of his agency and by himself, he is ultimately disposable.

Roy Baumeister - Is there anything good about being a man?

> In one episode [of The Apprentice], two members of one team were shown arguing about a difficult aspect of the upcoming task. Somebody had to take on the responsibility for doing what could be an unpromising chore that was needed for the team but carried some risk and unpleasantness. The argument became heated, as each person thought the other should do it. The woman goaded the man with the phrase “C’mon, be a man!”

> Indignant, he shot back, “You be a woman!” Immediately and almost shouting, she replied “I am a woman!” and went on to say more things. The man sat there in silence, unable to think of what else to say.

> We can understand his confusion. He did not know why he had abruptly lost that argument. She had said something to him, and he had said essentially the same thing back to her, but his reply had somehow failed utterly. He probably thought that in this age of gender equality and fair treatment for all and so forth, “Be a man” and “Be a woman” would be equal, parallel things to say. Yet they weren’t. She was a woman already, and she knew it, and he did too, and she did not have to prove it. But once his manhood was questioned, he would have to do more to prove it than simply say “I am a man!” in a loud voice.

u/cmumford · 2 pointsr/MensRights

I agree that The Myth of Male Power is basically the MRM bible - read it first. However, my favorite book - by far - is Is There Anything Good About Men?: How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men. Also, if you have a young boy I suggest Boys Adrift: The Five Factors Driving the Growing Epidemic of Unmotivated Boys and Underachieving Young Men for it's medical advice.

u/Vwar · 6 pointsr/MensRights

LMAO women were never considered property unless they happened to be slaves. Men don't consider their mothers "property" and you would certainly never value the well being of property over male life, as men have done toward women since forever.

Stop reading feminist revisionist garbage.

u/Aaod · 1 pointr/MensRights

The only one I would add to this is Self-Made Man by Norah Vincent. I felt it did a good job showing how men feel and interact as well as dispelling a lot of false ideas she had going into it about men and how their world is.

u/Fatalistic · 1 pointr/MensRights

It seems very unbelievable to hear about it, but the testing beared it out.

It's sourced in this book, by Dr. Roy F. Baumeister.

Note that while the book may largely be about evolutionary psychology and the like, DNA analysis results are not subjective in any way.

u/Maschalismos · 11 pointsr/MensRights

>It seems i have a LOT of reading to do now.

May I make some recommendations?

  1. The Myth of Male Power By Warren Farrel

  2. The Girl Writes What videos on youtube. This woman is widely regarded as our most eloquent and powerful ally
u/eyenot · 6 pointsr/MensRights

I was in your position about 4 years ago. A few months before my sister was due, when we were both visiting my mom (we all live in different parts of the country), I took advantage of a moment when nobody else was around and asked if they were planning to circumcise. She said, "Absolutely" as if it would be crazy not to. I don't remember what all I said, but I indicated I thought she shouldn't. And I probably reacted with a little more emotion than I had planned. She said "But (her husband's name) is", as if that's a good reason. She was very adamant about it. I had also kind of wanted to keep the conversation between us, because I had never talked with my parents about their decision to circumcise me. At that point, my mom came back in the house and my sister told her that I was upset about being circumcised. My mom kind of blew it off as being no big deal. Then more family came in and we dropped it. I was also feeling super pissed at how casually my mom reacted.

Later on, when it was just the three of us, I brought it up again to my mom. This time she actually said that, if she knew then what she knew now, that it has an effect on the man's pleasure, she probably would make a different decision. She talked about how much she cried when they brought me back from getting it done. And how she pretty much just went along with it - that my dad was circumcised, and everyone was getting it done. So, that made me feel a little better about it, that she at least recognized that maybe it was wrong, and I was glad she said that in front of my sister.

Sometime after that visit, when my sister and I were both back out our respective homes, we talked on the phone and I brought it up, and asked her if she'd be open to receiving some information about circumcision that she perhaps hadn't considered. She said she would be. So I sent her a long email containing lots of links and information. I also offered to buy her Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma if she would read it, but she didn't take me up on that.

She never did respond to that email. However, I heard through my mom that my sister and her husband were having lots of discussions about it, so I'd like to think I at least got them to consider the extent of what they were doing had they followed through with their original plan.

I wish I could tell you that I managed to convince them not to. Maybe I did, maybe I didn't. To this day, I don't know if my nephew is or isn't mutilated. I feel like if I did convince them not to, she would have told me they didn't. I do feel more distant from her now, and don't see her the same.

This may seem strange, but I feel like if I try to convince someone I care about not to circumcise, and they do anyway, it's an even worse crime than if they did it out of ignorance.

Anyway, it's a tough position that you're in. I don't think you'd be out of bounds to try to convince her not to - after all, for lots of people, it's just what you do and they wouldn't even stop to consider that, hey, maybe this is fucked up and wrong. But I also think you're right to worry about it damaging your relationship with her and her child.

TL;DR: I don't know what to tell you :(

u/StorkKing · 6 pointsr/MensRights

> women weren't allowed to do much of anything but sweep and cook.

Absolute rubbish. There are records of female blacksmiths going back to the middle ages, and women exercised enormous power in their communities and in the home. You're acting like women wanted to go work in coal mines. Read Christina Hoff Sommers, she explains (via historical documents) what actually happened. Females have always been the privileged sex.

u/thingsarebad · 8 pointsr/MensRights

Here's a link, buy it if you actually have a son who you genuinely care about and are not just a troll:

u/Lauzon_ · 22 pointsr/MensRights

Since this was front-paged I'm gonna hijack the top post and link to the work of Karen Straughan. She posts here occasionally and will hopefully chime in on this thread.

Me a feminist? No way:

Is Feminism hate? [skip to the 20 min. mark]

How Feminism conned society

Benevolent sexism?

The Tyranny of Female Hypoagency

Feminism and the Disposable Male.


A few good videos by Lindy Beige on female power in history:

Women power in the past

Sex Power: when women were different and men were disposable


Nice summary of Issues here: Why we need a men's rights movement


Good reading:

The Myth of Male Power

The Privileged Sex

No More Sex War

The Second Sexism

The War Against Boys

u/white_cloud · 4 pointsr/MensRights

The fact is that you're just woefully uninformed. It positively oozes out of your comments. You would have to spend a few months just educating yourself on the issues, reading a few books, watching a few videos, poring over a few blogs, to get a grasp of what this is all about.

Honestly, trying to educate you in the comments of this self-post would be like teaching calculus to someone who doesn't know basic arithmetic. You just have to educate yourself.

I can give you some resources to start, but I can't make you read.

u/Rygarb · 1 pointr/MensRights

Hi Alanna, thank you for commenting.

>That book is bullshit.

That could be, (it certainly was one of the most depressing books I have ever read) but I have met enough women like the one this thread is about (or these women) to know they are a sizable population.

>I love my father and my husband.

That is good. It is heartening.

I agree with you that the psychology/self-help section is mostly BS.

As far as spreading hatred toward men, I blame the the feminist movement, which for the past four decades have been systematically Spreading Misandry, Legalizing Misandry, waging an all out War Against Men and sadly even a War Against Boys.

u/Badgerz92 · 3 pointsr/MensRights

>by perpetuating myths

He's more responsible for busting the wage gap myth than anybody. Again you should learn more about MRAs before pretending to be one

u/IDeliverToPMME_Users · 1 pointr/MensRights

I make a second comment instead of editing the first one so if OP only checks the thread through "context" in his inbox, he'll see this one as well.

I really recommend this book gives insights on how we might start making studies on the subject, and lists all the psychological damage that potentially comes from circumcision. (as well as its possible effects on society as a whole)

u/kanuk876 · 1 pointr/MensRights

If you are genuinely interested, perhaps you might read a book on the topic.

u/kloo2yoo · 3 pointsr/MensRights

>Statement: Women earn a fraction of what men do.




You completely rephrased your statement from before.

Your original statement was this:

>women being paid less than men to perform the same jobs,

this is what I refuted, with this challenge:

>If you offer me a solid reference proving that women are being paid more than 10% less FOR IDENTICAL JOBS, WITH THE SAME TIME IN JOB, AND THE SAME NUMBER OF SICK DAYS, I promise I will look at it.

>But you won't.

And you didn't. The GAO report does not show that women in the same jobs, with the same time in job, and the same number of hour worked, are paid less. It explicitly states in bold letters on the first page of the report that work patterns partially explain the difference between mens' and women's earnings.

I determined this by reading the first page of the report, where it said, "Work Patterns
Partially Explain
Difference between
Men’s and Women’s
Earnings "

You have failed here to meet my challenge.

However, by eliminating the challenges:

  1. women are being paid more than 10% less




    you created your own challenge and met it.

    Here's a book for you:

    Even the AAUW cites a differing amount if time at work and time in job as significant factors in the wage gap:

    THis looks at the AAUW study closer, and finds flaws in

    This report by CONSAID, included this statement from in the a forward. this statement was from the US Department of Labor:

    > However, despite these gains the raw wage gap continues to be used in misleading ways to
    advance public policy agendas without fully explaining the reasons behind the gap.

    (CONSAID did the research, US Dept. of Labor provided the forward.)

    and look at this:

    >"At any given level of the career hierarchy, women are paid slightly more than men with the same background, have slightly less income uncertainty and are promoted as quickly," it concludes. "We concluded that the gender pay gap and differences in job rank in this most lucrative occupation is explained by females leaving the market at higher rates than males."

    Quoting a Carnegie Mellon University study.

u/Mytecacc · 5 pointsr/MensRights

Sure, here is a quick paper on the methods feminism uses to cover up and minimise female perpetrated domestic violence to conform to its theories on how it should look.

Here is Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge'

>Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies

Not peer reviewed like the first two, but an article from Real Clear Science on the topic

>Column: When 'science' looks for sexism, it finds it

u/Demonspawn · 1 pointr/MensRights

Here. It really is a "must read" essay.

There's a book out as well now.

u/mcollins1 · 2 pointsr/MensRights

So you've got a pretty limited scope. If you want to read a good discussion about the topic, check out Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men? An author and feminist philosopher debate the subject.

Additionally, there's a good amount of feminist literature on same sex abuse relationships, which obviously doesn't fit into a male vs. female narrative. Fundamentally, feminism is about fighting oppression and domination, which is not exclusively perpetrated by men and not exclusively suffered by women.

u/AnotherDAM · 1 pointr/MensRights

Advice will depend to a large extent on what country you live in and which state/ province.

As far as the MRM is concerned working 60 hours a week isn't proof of failure on your part - just proof of the choices your made as a family. If you think you needed to work 60 hour weeks to meet your needs as a one-household family then you are in for a painful reality as a two-household family.

Watch The Red Pill if you haven't already. Free with Amazon Prime. Ask your wife to watch it.

TALK TO A LAWYER. Which is really the only useful advice you will get off of this forum.

u/Truewords · 5 pointsr/MensRights

the youtube series is nice if you dont like to read, but it doesnt even come close to all of the issues covered in the book.

If any r/Mensrights redditors havent read it they need to.

u/SirTylerGalt · 1 pointr/MensRights

Stumbled upon this while reviewing old HN bookmarks. It seems Roy F. Baumeister wrote a book on the subject since then.

Some previous discussions on Hacker News:

u/VicisSubsisto · 3 pointsr/MensRights

Warren Farrell's Why Men Earn More.

A thorough review from an ex-NOW member who realized that if women really made $0.70 for every $1 men made, any company which didn't hire only women would be driven out of the market due to overhead...

u/Plavonica · 3 pointsr/MensRights

A link to Helen Smith's book.

u/iongantas · 2 pointsr/MensRights

It's all stuff that a regular reader of MensRights will know, it just happens to be this one radio journalist and the author of Men on Strike chatting about it.

u/BeneficialBlock · 1 pointr/MensRights


u/luxury_banana · 3 pointsr/MensRights

There is a much longer book in which the author (Roy Baumeister) covers these topics more in-depth.

Is There Anything Good About Men?: How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men

Other good reads which are related include The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley, and Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene.

u/zulu127 · 6 pointsr/MensRights

Were you seriously suggesting that this is fake? Amazon

u/890989 · 3 pointsr/MensRights

That wasn't the claim. The claim was that misandry is much more common than misogyny -- it appears literally every day in mainstream newspapers, is taught every day in schools etc.; indeed it is institutionalized. Police have to investigate hate crimes when a complaint is made. Therefore feminists would come under direct threat, legal precedents would have to be set etc. It would certainly make for some interesting debates, because most "misogyny" is just a figment of the feminist imagination. It would also force feminists to deal with fundamentalist religion, which is arguably misogynistic in some respects (and misandric in others).

Don't get me wrong, I don't support hate crime/speech laws.

u/DaNiceguy · 51 pointsr/MensRights

Wikipedia entry for the lazy.

And here is the book, which informs girls of the following:

> Girls, here it is―everything you need to know about boys: 1. Boys come from the Stupid Factory. 2. Boys are pretty much smelly and useless. 3. It is possible to have fun with boys, however..... 4. If you decide to keep a boyfriend, he will need to be housebroken.

u/dei2anged · 4 pointsr/MensRights

Is this a feminist board game?

Edit: there's a product description for the book which I can't imagine is too different.

I'd say the guy is more a careless fuckwad than a feminist.

u/The_Best_01 · 1 pointr/MensRights

>Interesting point of view. I would say not having the right to vote and being considered “property” is oppression, but I can see why you would think otherwise.

Then men have just as much right to complain too, since most men in the west couldn't vote until the mid-19th century at the earliest, especially in the UK, where we couldn't vote until 1918, just a decade before most women could. Also, women might have been considered property but least society doesn't still treat you like a disposable utility. There was never much equality in the world, until recently. In fact, there still isn't.

>I don’t agree “protection” is the correct description.

It was in those days.

>It seems you don’t have a full understanding of why the feminist movement began in the 19th century, because there genuinely were unequal rights and women were seen as lesser than a man

When did I say they didn't have less rights? All I said was the movement was not entirely pure from the start. True equality was never their final goal.

>legally women are equals, which is what the movement achieved

And much more than that, of course.

>I would be happy to delve deeper into your perspective of the topic if you are willing to share links or names of texts.

This and this are good places to start. I also encourage you to read this to learn more about how women have more or less manipulated society to their liking and how men (especially those in power) will often betray their own gender to bow to the demands of women. I think you'll find these books very interesting and eye-opening.

>Also, I’m not sure what you mean by “today’s morals” because morals are timeless. There are different philosophies, so of course you may disagree.

What is considered "right and wrong" throughout history changes is what I'm saying. You can't apply our standards to the past. I'm sure people in the future will look back in horror at things we don't even consider to be bad today.

u/nihilist_nancy · 1 pointr/MensRights

I didn't know Pat had a scholar brother.


Here's the full link: - for those of us that hate the mobile version.

u/aetheralloy · 3 pointsr/MensRights

You might consider the following:

Raising Cain - Although this one is not inherently anti-feminist, it is "feminist approved" and indicates a lot of the current problems boys are facing.

The Myth of Male Power -

The War Against Boys -

Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men -

u/NoCircGuy · 5 pointsr/MensRights

> His main concern is that not circumsizing would be admitting that there's something wrong with himself.
> This is troubling, and I think it's a big reason why guys who are cirumsized continue the practice without any seemingly good reasons.

This is talked about at length in Circumcsion: The Hidden Trauma. Would highly recommend reading.

u/Goodard · 3 pointsr/MensRights

I think you are ignorant about what feminism actually does

And as Othompson said, fuck off.

u/soulcakeduck · 8 pointsr/MensRights

> None of these things mean the MRM is inherently anti-feminist,

Technically true. None of those things make the movement anti-feminist.

MRAs are explicitly anti-feminist though. That does not mean anti-women, or that they criticize feminists for their failings. It means rejecting their core scholarship, a belief in patriarchy.

The common argument (made by leaders like AVFM, GWW, Warren Farrel) uses historical paternalism directed at women as proof that women have always been a more-privileged class. They don't have to work, or serve in the armed forces, and so on. Patriarchy, the idea that women have ever been oppressed by male dominance, is literally called a myth.

It is completely possible to have feminist-informed men's rights advocacy (as the Men's Liberation did, which the MRM broke away from). Maybe some self-identified MRAs fit that description. But the greater MRM itself is explicitly defining itself as anti-feminist.

u/ProjectVivify · 3 pointsr/MensRights

These are people whose rights are protected under our shield. If they are, were, or will be identifying as men they need to be taken care of. For transmen in particular it can be a shock to learn about the burdens of expected male gender roles in western society.

From what I know there's a certain brand of radical feminism that demonizes the trans community (some crap about transwomen trying to steal victimhood from women and transmen betraying their sisters by trying to claim male privilege).

u/ManAid · 3 pointsr/MensRights

Title: Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men

Title: Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture

Title: The Manipulated Man

u/OuiCrudites · 5 pointsr/MensRights

Here's one article in which a noted academic proves feminists deliberately corrupted domestic violence research to hide evidence of female perpetrators

Here's an entire book from another noted academic on how feminists are deliberately turning the education system against boys

There are many, many, many more pieces of evidence that show the supremacism of the feminist movement.

u/BeginnerSociologist · 3 pointsr/MensRights

The term "Gender Studies" is so broad that it is really hard to create a one size fits all rebuttal instead you have to attack individual claims. The subject itself has been criticised heavily from its inception (it was ridiculed by Sociologists during the Second Wave but sadly it infected the subject).

This is a great book criticising the subject itself

u/CaptSnap · 1 pointr/MensRights

Either way it sounds like it has as many downsides as upsides to be listed as a privilege. I wont get judged as much for being a sexual being..true
The clothes I wear wont matter one iota...true
No one gives a flying shit about me... also true

> It was the first time in my life I've ever been, for the most part, ignored. And it was great

You say this from the context of it being a choice. You may have a different perspective if this social alienation was not a choice. This woman author tried presenting as a man for a year and had to be checked into a mental hospital afterwards. She absolutely hated the dating dynamic the most. The way other women would just outright dismiss her as though she were dirt. She you did... that nobody noticing you/caring about you would be super fantastic fun time. She had a different experience and to my knowledge hasnt cared to repeat it.

Yeah being ignored is great when you want to be question. But thats not really the whole issue is it? What about all those times when you want to connect with another human being?

Its just another bullet point on this list but it spells out the overarching problem. Its clearly made by a woman looking at men and thinking these things are all awesome with no real empathic depth, thought, or experience. I mean this kind of crap really exposes the gender war for the senseless middle-school shit that it is.

u/DavidByron2 · 3 pointsr/MensRights

So I'm reading the Amazon reviews of the second book mentioned. Does anyone know if this statement is accurate?

> Perhaps the single most important thing Nathonson and Young do is refuse to draw back from saying that academic feminists--most of the feminists they discuss are professional scholar-teachers, most with PhDs--are unabashed hatemongers. In going so far they only stop short of annoncing that the "gender war" is in no way a metaphor, that feminists are just as determined to wreak damage on males as they contend males are determined to wreak on them.

> In a way, it will be interesting to see just how far this gauntlet thrown down to academic feminists will be picked up by them and responded to. To admit that feminists are explicitly anti-male, for instance, is to open up the whole academic industry of "Women' Studies"--which includes the female professors who teach in them--to the charge that they violate federal, state, and institutional regulations against hostile environment sexual harassment.

u/builtbro · 9 pointsr/MensRights

I didn't even know it was a "book" too. This is outrageously fucking disgusting. Read the description at amazon. This is going to be a movie that literally vilifies young boys and endorses violence against them. Fucking hell, sometimes I wish I never started questioning feminism and society's myriad blind bigotries.

u/firstterr · 7 pointsr/MensRights

"Male privilege" theory is one of the most retarded concepts in the history of the world. I can't believe I even have to argue this. A boy who had his guts blown out and died on a bed of barbed wire inhaling poisonous gas during WWI was privileged? Are you out of your fucking mind?

A more intriguing question is whether women have always been the privileged sex, as Israeli war historian Martin Van Creveld argues in his book of the same name. I don't think so, personally. Though females have had all sorts of privileges throughout history, how many men here would prefer to be a woman?

u/Munchausen-By-Proxy · 3 pointsr/MensRights

> Large proportion of men are CEOs (like extremely large proportion)

You have that backwards. Most CEOs are men, most men are not CEOs. Around here, this is called the apex fallacy. More men are homeless or in prison than are CEOs, but only one side of this coin is seen as a gender issue.

> Through fiction/mythology: Men are always the heros, women are the helpless creatures who can't do anything themselves.

What does that have to do with the value of their lives? Children are considered helpless, but also valuable.

> Through media: only 16% of oscar nominees are women, so men are better actors? Women are always nagging while men are always trying to avoid nagging spouses.

Again, nothing to do with value. Men achieve more because for men achievements are the path to value. They work longer hours, take bigger risks, but if they fail they are much more likely to kill themselves.

> Through policy: Ties back in with CEOs, most policy makers are men themselves (21/100 congress members are women)

But most voters are women. The behavior of politicians reflects society's wider values, not the other way around.

> It's easy to come up with anecdotal points that prove your ideals.

None of what I said qualifies as an anecdote. They are all well-documented trends.

> Do you have any actual scientific sources that back up what you're saying?

There have been books written on the subject, from both cultural and evo-psych perspectives. More research is needed, unfortunately the problem is self-reinforcing with many people being actively hostile to spending money researching men's issues.