The aim of the Men's Rights Movement is to defeat the Puritan-Feminist morality which criminalizes normal male sexuality, and so far we have only failed. Not entirely for lack of trying, as I, for example, have made myself the worst Norwegian enemy of the state since Quisling in an attempt to overturn it, but we failed to affect policy at all. To win the sex war, we need someone like Tom Grauer of The Daily Antifeminist.
13 comments
Puritan-Feminist
?
I, for example, have made myself the worst Norwegian enemy of the state since Quisling
I think you severely overestimate your real-world relevance. At the very least, I'd say that Anders Behring Breivik has a much better claim to that "honour".
So, thinking ADULT women have the right to make their own sexual decisions is Puritanism?
[MRA]They both demonize rape, and tend to emphasize sappy ideas like "love," "common wellfare," and "unselfishness," so yeah, they're totally the same thing![/MRA]
If you guys were actually a "Men's Right Movement" you would be actually working with feminist to remove the idea that men must hide their emotion,that they are inherently the worse parent in custody battle. You would be not be complaining about how women are "treated like queen" Or that you can't just beat your wife in public. Feminism helps men just as much as womens to the point where the point where MRA and Feminism could have been inclusive with each other if for idiots overtaking the movement. You never were a Men's Right Movement the moment it was formed. Neither you nor anyone else have that right to call yourself or any other following that. Fuck you for daring to say that you are MRA when you never were for Men's right but for Men's superiority.
#2130332: Groups which tackle men's issues do exist, but they're tiny and largely obscure. A good rule of thumb is to be extremely wary of any groups which include the term "rights" in their name. For example, "Grandparent's Rights" groups largely consist of people who abused their kids and are pissed that said kids won't let them have access to their grandkids. I mean, not every such group is bad, but most of the well-meaning ones avoid using the term these days due to the fact that it takes on an Orwellian tone for some people.
@Zinnia
and I find that frustrating. Certain word and phrases that are supposed to have a positive meaning getting butchered by ill intentions. Sometime I am surprised people are still willing to use the word "rights" to refer to the basic need to people to live when the rights have been screwing people over for a while. Then again, there is a reason alt-right is a term, so at least there is clarity on who is causing the damages.
Men dressing up as Spider-Man & Batman, then climbing up onto roofs, bridges, royal palaces etc: because they were legally denied access to their children. Why don't we see them in the news any more?
Can't be because they were sued into oblivion by Marvel & DC for using their characters without their permission. Otherwise that would have been mentioned in said news reports about these 'Men's Rights' - a.k.a. 'Fathers For Justice' - campaigners.
Not entirely for the lack of trying .
Meanwhile, men denied their most basic of rights: Freedom. Because they thought they had the right to have access to children.
Other people's.
There's an extremely good reason why Nazis = terrorists. Just ask Vidkun Quisling. Oh, wait.
There's an extremely good reason why Paedophiles = terrorists. Just ask Gary Glitter. Oh, wait.
And as ISIS raped babies , good luck with that.
Because if you can do less than fuck all to affect policy: certainly peoples' attitudes to the likes of you, then how can anyone else even think they can do better...?
Puritan-Feminist
Yeah, since those Puritans were known to be such feminists.....er, wait a minute....
@Zinnia
A good rule of thumb is to be extremely wary of any groups which include the term "rights" in their name.
Like when anyone in the US starts talking about "states' rights". You can be pretty damn sure they're talking about their "right" to take away the rights of others.
"If you guys were actually a "Men's Right Movement" you would be actually working with feminist to remove the idea that men must hide their emotion,that they are inherently the worse parent in custody battle."
The first idea is indeed claimed by feminists, but feminists have achieved no results there. Men who show feelings are scorned by others, even by feminists, and women are not attracted to such men. So it is in fact better to hide your feelings if you're male.
The second idea isn't even held by feminists. Feminists are doing all they can to prevent males from winning custody battles. In two countries I've lived so far you can't get custody unless the mother actively abandons her children and does anything she can not to see them. Otherwise you get custody if you're a woman. Both of these countries have mostly female judges in family courts.
Hi again caamib!
Is it personal experience that you are talking about when you talk about men not getting their children from the court or is it not? If it is from something other than personal experience, that's bad! Women aren't better caretakers just because they're women, so men and women should be given equal opportunity to be caretaker.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.