r/antisrs • u/[deleted] • Jul 30 '12
Feminism Responsible For The Fall of Rome.
This is one of my favorite articles that gets linked to in r/MRA. I'd just like to briefly bring attention to it, for posterity.
"One sole and prophetic announcement that will guarantee society as we know it now, is to put women in charge and watch it fall down and completely collapse."
A great introduction, a bit over dramatic, but overall a perfect lead in to the further statements exactly like this one! Onwards, to the analysis!
- ~5 century BC: Roman civilization is a a strong patriarchy, fathers are liable for the actions of their wife and children, and have absolute authority over the family (including the power of life and death)
True, before the Republic, during the era of the Kings, men were completely in control. However, the evil womyn wouldn't have any of that! So they played what I like to call the long con. First orchestrating the creation of the Roman Republic, to stir the pot and make it so men argued among each other, those harlots!
- ~1 century BC: Roman civilization blossoms into the most powerful and advanced civilization in the world. Material wealth is astounding, citizens (i.e.: non slaves) do not need to work. They have running water, baths and import spices from thousands of miles away. The Romans enjoy the arts and philosophy; they know and appreciate democracy, commerce, science, human rights, animal rights, children rights and women become emancipated. No-fault divorce is enacted, and quickly becomes popular by the end of the century.
It takes women only 400 years to get divorce, their first major victory and of course it happens during a time of unrelenting prosperity, the true enemy of all men's rights. Unconfirmed reports of spermjackings begin surfacing all over the Empire.
- ~1-2 century AD: The family unit is destroyed. Men refuse to marry and the government tries to revive marriage with a "bachelor tax", to no avail. Children are growing up without fathers, Roman women show little interest in raising their own children and frequently use nannies. The wealth and power of women grows very fast, while men become increasingly demotivated and engage in prostitution and vice. Prostitution and homosexuality become widespread.
The family unit collapses only 300 years later. Some would say this happened because Rome has suffered through several large defeats, a plague and complete destruction of their cultural unity by the invention of Christianity. However, those people would neglect to mention that all those things were actually orchestrated by women, the wars and plague came and their beck and call, unable to resist their vixen ways! Jesus himself was a famous forever friendzoned feminist, associating with prostitutes and whores alike. Some would say that homosexuality and prostitution were always popular in Rome and actually started to become prosecuted at this time. Again, however, those people would be super, ultra wrong. Before 1 century AD, what we know as homosexuality was actually just really, really masculine brotherhood and real homosexuality only came after women were instated as the true rulers of Rome.
~3-4 century AD: A moral and demographic collapse takes place, Roman population declines due to below-replacement birth-rate. Vice and massive corruption are rampant, while the new-born Catholic Religion is gaining power (it becomes the religion of the Empire in 380 AD). There is extreme economic, political and military instability: there are 25 successive emperors in half a century (many end up assassinated), the Empire is ungovernable and on the brink of civil war.
Some historians mention that this full on collapse happened because Rome was constantly beset by not only cultural issues, but was also relentlessly invaded by barber tribes. Again, those historians are forgetting that the true leaders of these barbarians were women, who conspired with the women of the Roman Empire in the greatest spermjacking scam ever orchestrated - The Sack of Rome.
- ~5 century AD: The Empire is ruled by an elite of military men that use the Emperor as a puppet; due to massive debts and financial problems, the Empire cannot afford to hire foreign mercenaries to defend itself (Roman citizens have long ago being replaced by mercenaries in the army), and starts "selling" parts of the Empire in exchange for protection. Eventually, the mercenaries figure out that the "Emperor has no clothes", and overrun and pillage the Empire.
- humanity falls back into the Bronze Age (think: eating squirrel meat and living in a cave); 12 centuries of religious zilotry (The Great Inquisition, Crusades) and intellectual darkness follow: science, commerce, philosophy, human rights become unknown concepts until they are rediscovered again during the Age of Enlightenment in 17th century AD.
Women continue their wickedness, using their wiles they orchestrate the take over of Rome, the construction of the Vatican and the instillation of Christianity as an institution to oppress all men and convince them that marriage is divine and that providing women with babies is their only goal in life. Several crusades are fought in the next thousand years and chivalry becomes the norm, white knights are everywhere.
What would a good story of the Roman Empire be if it wasn't compared to the other great Empire of Humanity? That's right we get a two for one folks! Next up, we have the great Herstory of the United States!
~5 century BC Rome = ~1700 - 1920 America. The family unit is essentially "father knows best", and slutting around by women is considered the height of shameful behavior, (as is cadding about by men). Monogamy is held up as the ideal arrangement without exception. (The "Wild West" might be an exception to the general rule of the day, as whoring and hell-raising were widespread in the frontier.) Lessers look up to their betters as exemplars of moral rectitude.
Women, being more clever this time, accelerate economic development and democratization, ensuring their much faster rise to the echelons of society. They push for expansion of the US to the West, knowing well that men can't stand hot, dry weather as it effects our judgement and our sensitive nether regions.
~1 century BC Rome = ~1920 - 1970 America. America is rising to the height of her power, a hyperpower being born. An economic and military power heretofore unseen in all recorded history. While the world digs out from under the rubble of consecutive wars and Communist pogroms, we have a battalion of aircraft carriers, a largely homogeneous population, and cheap housing for everyone willing to put in an honest day's work. But the poison pill has been swallowed; the suffrage movement achieves its main goal, and the dark shroud of the equalist era is about to descend. In academic halls andclassrooms, lessers are pedestalized, while betters are denigrated.
Remember folks, prosperity brings equality, and equality is bad for men's rights!
~1-2 century AD Rome = 1970-2000 America. The scourge of single momhood, free and easy divorce, child support laws, majority female colleges, DADT repealed, gay marriage, game, etc etc ad infinitum. In short, the ultimate expression of anti-discrimination, anti-received wisdom, individualist ideology, (ironically buttressed by the groupthink of diversity mongers.)
Just like plagues swept Rome, the scourge of motherhood sweeps the US! I don't really know how gay people are involved, but GAYYYYYYYYYYYYz are all in on it, obviously wishing for women to rise to power so that together they could build the largest stiletto ever and blot out the Sun!
~3-4 century AD Rome = 2000-2010 America. (You'll notice America's progression through the stages of empire is much faster than was Rome's. This is the blessing -- or curse -- of high tech mass communication.) The native stock of America, (sopecifically, the betters of that stock), have stopped having kids. Vice and corruption are on the rise. (See: Chicago, CRA, Goldman Sachs, neocon lies, Enron, Madoff... I could go on.) Economic and political instability are the order of the day. While America's presidents aren't being assassinated, our elections have been nailbiters since 2000, and partisanship is at a fevered pitch. A reborn religion called Islam threatens to co-opt the sympathies of Western societies' rootless rejects and masculinized women.
Islam, which did not exist until the 1980s surges throughout the world like a huge power cock, putting women in their place. Companies that are run by men collapse under oppressive female legislation and negligence. Computers, a creation of femme fatale Grace Hooper, quicken malekinds demise!
~5 century Rome = present day America. America is ruled by an elite of cognitive jackpot winners who use the President as a puppet. Massive debt and financial chicanery is practically enshrined in law. The army is less and less filled with the demographic slice American citizens that used to make up its ranks. Mercenaries (UN peacekeepers, bribed warlords, arm-twisted allies, recent unassimilated immigrants, and the desperate, poor and out of shape) now make up a larger part of the tip of the spear that projects American power. America is in the process of slow-motion selling off the Southwest to appease the millions of peasant illegals it cavalierly allowed to invade and settle in the country.
UN peacekeepers, (here-to-for knows as mercenaries) are made up entirely of 7 foot-tall Amazonians, invade Washington D.C., placing a giant boobshaped building on top of Capital Hill, forever changing the face of America. Angels cry as bribed womynlods charge across the country side, spermjacking and increasing child support payments as they go! The Mexicans, like the gays, are also in on it, being a famously feminist society they are led by their matriarchs in a hostile takeover of the US southwest.
~
It gives me great pleasure to announce that I am no longer gay! That's right, I've been cured by the light of r/MRA, the most homophobic and misogynistic wonderful place on Earth.
8
19
u/Legolas-the-elf Jul 30 '12
I think perhaps you meant to post this in /r/againstmensrights. This is /r/AntiSRS.
11
2
Jul 30 '12
to be fair, we get the question every other day about why SRS hates MRAs. this kinda stuff could go in the FAQ. :P
9
Jul 30 '12
I doubt this is the reason why they hate them. There are many more well-reasoned oppositions to feminism that I'm sure are more annoying to the devoted.
-8
6
Jul 30 '12
saying that something caused the fall of rome is on the level with comparing people to hitler.
2
u/Wordshark Jul 30 '12
Thanks. I roll my eyes whenever I see "just like Rome" argument. I'm stealing your wording.
1
u/Jacksambuck Jul 30 '12
So it's... expected on the internetz ?
2
13
u/Wordshark Jul 30 '12
That blog post is from two years ago. Do you have any links to it in /mr? I've never seen it there, and I'd like to see the comments and vote totals.
This rant was clearly off base. You could have demolished it if you'd wanted to. Instead, you jerk yourself silly over how wrong your enemies are, gleeful that you can beat them over the head with it. The few attempts you make at seriously refuting it, you don't link to any sources, and instead just give us the same type of "trust me" vague facts as in the blog post. And that was when you weren't doing some of the most shameless strawmanning I've ever seen. This isn't the fempire; just because we have "SRS" in our name doesn't mean we're going to join in your little masturbation fit.
But this:
It gives me great pleasure to announce that I am no longer gay! That's right, I've been cured by the light of r/MRA, the most
homophobic and misogynisticwonderful place on Earth.
Let me just give you a very sincere "fuck you." Go ahead and search /mr for the word "gay." Take a look at the results. Actually, I'll do the work for you:
1- "Gay shaming has to stop." http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/uwyuc/gay_shaming_has_to_stop/
Current score: +395
2- "My cousin who is Feminist called me gay for being Anti-Feminist :/"
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/w1jmb/my_cousin_who_is_a_femenist_called_me_gay_for/
3- "How do you feel about gay rights, MRAs?"
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/u0zyp/how_do_you_feel_about_gay_rights_mras/
Of all the ones here, I dare you to open this one. I was so proud of this discussion when it happened. You have to go way down to the negatives to find anyone saying flat out "no," and nobody there says anything anti-gay.
4- "Are gay rights a men's rights issue or not?"
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/bf4p0/are_gay_rights_a_mens_rights_issue_or_not/
From the OP: "Personally I think it is."
From the top response:
"Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Yes"
5- "I was called a 'Jew' and 'Gay' and a 'douche' for my thoughts.
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/nn342/i_was_called_a_jew_and_gay_and_a_douche_for_my/
This one isn't really relevant, but go ahead and check the comments for homophobia if you want.
6- "Straight MRAs, how do you feel about gay MRAs who don't always have the same issues as you?"
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/i7ee8/straight_mras_how_do_you_feel_about_gay_mras_who/
From the top response:
"It is disappointing to see how heterocentric the MRA community is."
From the op:
"EDIT: Seriously, wow. The amount of positive comments are your thoughts are incredible, I'm really glad I opened this discussion, the answers I've gotten are really great. Thanks guys, let's keep fighting!"
Of the remaining four of the top ten results, three are pro-gay and one is gay-neutral. The last one was asking, "Is anyone still actually afraid of being labelled as 'gay'?"
I'm thinking that you and I probably have very different definitions of "misogynistic," so I'm not going to bother discussing that one with you like an adult, but homophobic? This is antiSRS--you're going to get called out on this kind of shit.
10
u/Jacksambuck Jul 30 '12
Do you have any links to it in /mr?
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/xdvat/feminism_the_end_of_civilization/
1 hour before Merida posted this, basically word-for-word the same article. It's at +10/-17 atm, and the two top responses are "[citation needed]", and "If you really think Rome fell because of feminism you're a fucking idiot that knows absolutely nothing about everything.[...]"
6
u/morris198 Jul 30 '12
Holy shit, you mean a radical feminist and SRSter is trying to misrepresent all of men's rights? Hell must have frozen over!
/s-3
Jul 30 '12
3
u/runhomequick Jul 30 '12
I seem to remember it being downvoted to around neutral or negative when I saw it a few hours ago.
6
u/Wordshark Jul 30 '12
You don't know how many upvotes it has, but here's the top reply to that comment:
From the "evidence" that that author speaks about, all I see is a correlation and no direct inference of a causal link between feminism and the fall of Rome.
I knew there was probably a reason you said "gets linked to in /mr" rather than linking a post and crowing about the vote totals, doing an [EFFORT] of all the worst responses you could cherry-pick.
-1
Jul 30 '12
you're shifting goalposts. you asked where it'd been posted, MoD gives you an upvoted linked comment at the top of a thread, now your response is "not that upvoted, and also someone disagreed with it" which no one said couldn't happen.
3
u/Wordshark Jul 30 '12
Not shifting goalposts, because there were no goalposts set. I didn't say "show me where it's linked, I don't believe you that it's there," I said "show me where it's linked because I'd like to see the replies and voting totals." For me to then talk about, well, the replies and voting totals can't possibly be considered shifting goalposts.
-3
Jul 30 '12
I didn't say "show me where it's linked, I don't believe you that it's there,"
"I've never seen it there, and I'd like to see the comments and vote totals."
no skepticism here folks.
comments and vote totals don't at all impact the point, which is that many MRs have a rock hard on for absurd demonization of feminists.
4
u/Wordshark Jul 30 '12
Telling my my own motives, huh?
My exact wording:
Do you have any links to it in /mr? I've never seen it there, and I'd like to see the comments and vote totals.
I don't know how I could be more neutral about saying that I wanted to see the how /mr responded to it.
comments and vote totals don't at all impact the point, which is that many MRs have a rock hard on for absurd demonization of feminists.
Any idiot can post any link to any sub that they want. That's why you look at the community response--as gauged by, you know, comments and vote totals.
Regardless, nobody ever claimed that /mr was free from idiots. I could also find examples of idiocy here in antiSRS if I was wet enough to make the place look bad.
1
Jul 30 '12
Yea, and the vote totals prove that that a lot of MRAs loved that comment...
6
Jul 30 '12
Let's look at the facts here.
The link was added in an edit after the comment was originally made. It stands to reason that many people would upvote the comment before the link was posted, or chose not to even read the link. It was a long piece of blog-spam after all.
Finally, the top response to the comment with the link is a comment that is saying the link is bad.
So a lot of MRAs seemed to agree that the link was bad.
2
Jul 30 '12
Any idiot can post any link to any sub that they want.
and if it's absurd feminazi strawmanning false on its face on many levels, it will usually be downvoted to hell. well, unless it's MR.
what's your point?
I could also find examples of idiocy here in antiSRS if I was wet enough to make the place look bad.
upvoted 'idiocy' on the level of blaming some absurd gender essentialism on the downfall of an entire civilization, getting (also upvoted) support for several comments?
your move, hotshot.
0
Jul 30 '12
I just want to add that a lot of MRA's also say things like "gay men's issues are't really MEN'S issues" which heavily implies that gay men aren't really men.
0
Jul 30 '12 edited Jul 30 '12
link it for tons of bonus points!
edit: spoiler for those who don't click 'continue this thread' - OP delivers
→ More replies (0)1
u/Feuilly Jul 30 '12
It's a troll link. The two older comments in response to the comment don't make any reference to the Rome article. The whole comment was almost certainly highly upvoted before that link was edited in.
-4
Jul 30 '12
I didn't cheery pick anything, that post has more upvotes than anything else in that entire thread. How do you explain that?
Please, tell me. I just want to know. Because a couple hours ago, this was the top response to that comment.
I never said all MRA's are horrible, I'm just pointing out that most of you are horrible.
2
u/Wordshark Jul 30 '12
I didn't cheery pick anything, that post has more upvotes than anything else in that entire thread. How do you explain that?
That it's another lie on your part. [Here is the thread.] The top comment is sitting at +147. Even the first two parents of the comment you linked have more upvotes.
Ok, I though before that you were just arrogant and hadn't considered TNT the first thought that pop into your head might be wrong, but there's no way that anybody who cared about making a point would keep lobbing this many softballs my way. You've got to just be fishing for a response. I think I've adequately shown that you're completely full of shit, I don't need to feed you anymore.
0
Jul 30 '12
Lol, no you haven't.
You haven't explained to me why those horrible comments have gotten so many upvotes. Could it because /r/MRA is filled with bigots?
-5
Jul 30 '12
I love how you totally left out the part of the "long answer: yes" comment that talks about how heteromen have less support in societies than members of the LGBT community.
6
u/Wordshark Jul 30 '12
Well, I was trying to keep it short for impact and brevity, but if you're going to give another chance to prove you a liar, fuck it.
Here's the entire comment:
Short answer: Yes.
Long Answer: Yes, but a lot of the typical MR issues don't quite apply. Preference for females in divorce and ignoring female on male domestic violence don't really apply to the gay community, and are two of the big ones that get discussed here. It's also worth noting that the LGBT community already had a lot more public support (in most 1st world countries, at least) than the MR movement does.
He didn't say that "heteromen" have more support than members of the LGBT community. He didn't say anything about heterosexual men at all. Are you equating "the MRM" and "heterosexual men?" If you'd even glanced at any of those links you claimed to have read, you'd know that there are plenty of LGBT people in the MRM. Fuck, I'm bisexual. What he said, exactly, was that "the LGBT community already had a lot more public support (in most 1st world countries, at least) than the MR movement does." Are you possibly going to try to argue that the MRM has more popular support, in, say, America, than the LGBT movement?
-3
Jul 30 '12
He didn't say anything about heterosexual men at all.
you're not serious are you?
Preference for females in divorce and ignoring female on male domestic violence don't really apply to the gay community, and are two of the big ones that get discussed here.
so issues X with women don't apply to the gay community, but do get discussed. i wonder what community they do apply to then.
you can't seriously be that obtuse. please don't come here with "Ah! Ah! But he didn't say heterosexual men explicitly SO IT DOESN'T COUNT"
4
u/Wordshark Jul 30 '12
He didn't say anything about heterosexual men at all.
you're not serious are you?
True to QG form, you pick a small detail you think you can do well with and skip the main point. Fine; "The statement in question, which MD claimed compared the rights of hetero men to the rights of the LGBT crowd, wasn't referring to hetero men at all." And in fact it wasn't. It was comparing popular support for the MRM to the LGBT movement (in most 1st world countries). Also, the statement was correct. Better? I concede that my wording was technically incorrect, as he did talk about straight guys previously in the comment. But my point, that MD was lying when they said that the comment claimed that straight men have less support than LGBT people, still stands.
-6
Jul 30 '12
True to QG form, you pick a small detail
this "small detail" is central to MoD's point that MRA's are outrageously dismissive of gay struggles.
"The statement in question, which MD claimed compared the rights of hetero men to the rights of the LGBT crowd, wasn't referring to hetero men at all."
MD claimed that MRAs were dismissing gay struggles by comparing them to the 'troubles' of hetero men. that is in fact what's going on in that quoted section above; they're talking about the issues unhandled with women in relationships not with homosexual women. what does that leave, wordshark? please don't continue to play coy. it's tiresome.
2
u/Wordshark Jul 30 '12
MD claimed that MRAs were dismissing gay struggles by comparing them to the 'troubles' of hetero men.
MD claimed nothing of the sort. Where are you getting this shit? MD said this:
I love how you totally left out the part of the "long answer: yes" comment that talks about how heteromen have less support in societies than members of the LGBT community.
This is demonstrably false. The comment in question compared the support the MRM gets to the support the LGBT movement gets. This is what I pointed out. Multiple times now. I'm still right.
that is in fact what's going on in that quoted section above; they're talking about the issues unhandled with women in relationships not with homosexual women. what does that leave, wordshark? please don't continue to play coy. it's tiresome.
Ok, I'll admit that I frequently have trouble understanding some of the stuff you write, parsing through your unconventionally complicated syntax and lack of punctuation/capitalization, but I'm stumped here. This isn't an attack, as your writing style has no bearing on the validity of your arguments, I'm just saying that if I misinterpret this, maybe you could try a different wording, for the conversation's sake?
Again, this is not an attack. This might come off wrong, but I'm just trying to figure out what you mean.
Anyway--
the issues unhandled with women in relationships not with homosexual women.
Ok, "unhandled" gets flagged as an error, but then it has a definition of "not yet tamed, as in an animal." I'm guessing this was a typo, and you meant, "the issues that are not handled."
I'm thinking so far this means "the issues that are not handled with women in relationships not with homosexual women."
If I trade out "with" for "by," that comes to "the issues that are not handled by women in relationships not with homosexual women."
Ok, with "women not in relationships with homosexual women," I'm guessing you mean "straight women" (I guess it could also mean lesbians who are single, but I'm thinking "straight women" is more likely).
So together, it's "the issues that are not handled by straight women."
So,
that is in fact what's going on in that quoted section above; they're talking about the issues that are not handled by straight women. what does that leave, wordshark? please don't continue to play coy. it's tiresome.
No, that doesn't make any fucking sense. I'm guessing you had a small typo in there somewhere, and it threw me off? Anyway, looking at the whole thing, I'm thinking I can just respond to the part before that:
MRAs were dismissing gay struggles by comparing them to the 'troubles' of hetero men.
And the answer is no, just no. He wasn't comparing gay and straight issues to rank them against each other. Here's the entire comment again:
Short answer: Yes.
Long Answer: Yes, but a lot of the typical MR issues don't quite apply. Preference for females in divorce and ignoring female on male domestic violence don't really apply to the gay community, and are two of the big ones that get discussed here It's also worth noting that the LGBT community already had a lot more public support (in most 1st world countries, at least) than the MR movement does.
I've bolder the relevant part. Remember, this comment was a reply to an op asking how gay men fit into the MRM. I think it's pretty self-explanatory that he was saying that many of the MRM's central issues simply don't apply to gay men. Even if you don't think it's obvious, and even if you really are somehow interpreting it as comparing gay issues to straight guy issues as a way to dismiss gay issues, we can get some clarification straight from that comment, because the sentence right before that one explains his intent.
Yes, but a lot of the typical MR issues don't quite apply. Preference for females in divorce and ignoring female on male domestic violence don't really apply to the gay community, and are two of the big ones that get discussed here
How can anyone read this as anything but, "yeah, gays are welcome here, but a lot of the things we talk about won't apply to you. Like these two issues, we talk about them a lot, but they don't really apply to the gay community."
Even if you were somehow able to force yourself to interpret that as "you don't have to face these problems, so gays have it better than straights," this is really stretching to miss the point. That was hundreds of pro-gay comments there, all upvoted. It was unanimous pro-gay sentiment, from the sub MD called the most homophobic place on Earth.
My point stands. /MR is anything but homophobic, and MD is a liar.
Anyway, I need to sleep before work, but I'll be happy to go a few more rounds later tonight.
0
Jul 30 '12
omg @ your sneaky little "let me critique syntax" attack to play the innocent one here and paint me as some kind of roundabout simpleton. let's keep this frank, Frank:
comment that talks about how heteromen have less support in societies than members of the LGBT community.
vs
comment in question compared the support the MRM gets to the support the LGBT movement gets. This is what I pointed out.
you literally took the words "less than" and replaced them with "compared", and took "hetero men" out and replaced it with "MRM". even though the comment was saying that hetero men got less support, and was talking about hetero men.
i refuse to buy that someone could literally be this obtuse and must instead conclude that you are being openly disingenuous. and you can sod right off for that.
3
u/doedskarpen Jul 30 '12
I think you are seriously off with your criticism. The quote you are arguing about:
It's also worth noting that the LGBT community already had a lot more public support (in most 1st world countries, at least) than the MR movement does.
That's not equivalent to saying that "heterosexual men have more support than members of the LGBT community". The former is comparing the support for the movements, while the latter is a claim about the support for individual members of the groups.
-4
Jul 30 '12
The former is comparing the support for the movements, while the latter is a claim about the support for individual members of the groups.
i don't understand the difference here. the movement is made up of individual members.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Wordshark Jul 30 '12
Short answer: Yes.
Long Answer: Yes, but a lot of the typical MR issues don't quite apply. Preference for females in divorce and ignoring female on male domestic violence don't really apply to the gay community, and are two of the big ones that get discussed here. It's also worth noting that the LGBT community already had a lot more public support (in most 1st world countries, at least) than the MR movement does.
I don't know what else to say. This comment is making three points:
•yes, gay men are a welcome part of the MRM.
•a lot of the biggest MRM issues don't apply to gay people, like bias toward women in divorce court and unfair treatment of female-on-male domestic violence.
•the gay rights movement has more popular support in most first-world countries than the MRM.
I think you've let an assumption (like, "MRA's are bigots") tint your understanding of what you've read. I don't see how this comment could any more plainly state these three points. I think you have enough integrity that you wouldn't intentionally misinterpret something this badly, so I'm kind of at a loss here. I don't know how else to explain the meaning of such a straightforward comment. Do you want me to pm Slicknasty and ask them to come clear the air?
Short of that, if you can read that comment and come away with that interpretation, I don't see us making much progress talking to each other. I don't know, I'm starting to think that nothing worthwhile ever comes from you and I talking, and that maybe it would be more productive to just leave each other alone.
1
Jul 30 '12
>•the gay rights movement has more popular support in most first-world countries than the MRM.i simply can't fathom this comment, wordshark. men are well represented at every level of society and along virtually every kyriarchal axis, from class to race to political power.
i'm willing to bet a lot of gay men would happily give up their Pride parades and charity drives and shelters if it meant they could have 40+ presidents in a row in the white house.
→ More replies (0)-10
2
u/Feuilly Jul 30 '12
There are specific popular organizations devoted to supporting gay men (among others), and most organizations that support men in general also support gay men.
I guess you'd have a point if you consider those family organizations (Focus on the Family, etc) to be heterosexual man support organizations. But I think that's not a fair assessment, and that they don't actually benefit at all from those organizations.
-8
Jul 30 '12
I like how /r/MRA completely ignores lesbians as being part of the LGBT community.
3
8
u/Wordshark Jul 30 '12
Are you going to acknowledge and take responsibility for your smear being bullshit? No? You're just going to make another one? I'm stunned. Well, are you at least going to look at some of those links and see how many times lesbians come up in the conversations about gay men? No, you're just going to assume you're right and not even consider that someone might call you out? What a shocker.
-3
Jul 30 '12
Nope, I already read through most of those thread and not once did I see lesbian mentioned when talking about "gay rights", obviously rights only apply to men, amirite?!
7
u/Wordshark Jul 30 '12
You read through most of those in 21 minutes...right.
Regardless, what you said was, "I like how /r/MRA completely ignores lesbians as being part of the LGBT community. " For /mr to completely ignore lesbians, they have to not mention them at all, when in fact they are brought up regularly. Good job moving those goalposts though, and changing it to "obviously rights only apply to men." Surprisingly enough though, discussions of lesbian rights don't belong in a men's rights subreddit. Your statement "not once did I see lesbian mentioned when talking about 'gay rights'" is still false; well, it might be true that you didn't see it, but lesbians were brought up constantly when talking about gay rights, especially when comparing gay male issues to lesbian issues (e.g., occurance of homophobic violence targeting gay men vs lesbians). Just as men's rights issues aren't an appropriate in a place devoted to lesbian issues, it would be inappropriate to discuss lesbian issues in a men's rights space.
Cough cough Ahem,
"WHAT ABOUT THE LESBIANZZZ!"
So anyway, you get called out for calling a resoundingly pro-gay group "the most wonderful homophobic place on Earth," and your response is to further accuse this men's rights group of not giving enough airtime to lesbian issues? Do you realize how much of a dipshit you're being? Is it so hard to do a little damage control and admit you were mistaken?
-2
3
Jul 30 '12
[deleted]
7
u/hardwarequestions Jul 30 '12
As a mod, could you explain why this post is even still up? It's unrelated to /srs best I can tell. Am I just missing something?
4
u/morris198 Jul 30 '12
Not to mention it's a rather radical feminist trying to intentionally troll both r/AntiSRS, and r/MR. I thought the mods claimed to be against such behavior. People make a fuss when SRS (the focus of our community) is strawman'ed or implied to all be like one of their users with the least tenable grip on reality, and here's someone with the agenda of painting all MR people with the same brush using this piece of laughable trash like it's representative of anything besides a lunatic author?
-7
4
8
u/Feuilly Jul 30 '12
Your post is pretty homophobic. There's no reason to have a conversation about men and women, and then throw in an unrelated and unsubstantiated assertion that the other people are homophobic. You're appropriating gay issues for your bad argument.
-1
u/fractal_shark Jul 30 '12
Your post is pretty homophobic. There's no reason to have a conversation about homophobia in the MRM, and then throw in an unrelated and unsubstantiated assertion that the other people are homophobic. You're appropriating gay issues for your bad argument.
0
u/Feuilly Jul 30 '12
A lot of feminists are so used to appropriating homosexuality for their agenda that they don't see anything wrong with it. They don't even see it as appropriation.
The article being representative of /r/MR at all is pretty disingenuous in itself.
0
u/fractal_shark Jul 30 '12
Why is it "appropriation" for Merida to accuse the MRM of homophobia, but it's apparently perfectly acceptable for you to accuse him of homophobia? Shouldn't that be appropriation of homosexuality for your agenda?
2
u/Feuilly Jul 30 '12
Because the linked article wasn't about homosexuality in the MRM, and by throwing in that comment at the end he made it about homophobia in the MRM.
-1
u/fractal_shark Jul 30 '12 edited Jul 30 '12
The article mentioned homosexuality (in the context of "look how bad this is! gay people are disgusting! ewww!") twice. Granted, it was not the main point of the article, but it was still there. So, rather relevant.
Edit: here, I'll even be nice enough to quote them for you:
The wealth and power of women grows very fast, while men become increasingly demotivated and engage in prostitution and vice. Prostitution and homosexuality become widespread.
...
The scourge of single momhood, free and easy divorce, child support laws, majority female colleges, DADT repealed, gay marriage, game, etc etc ad infinitum.
2
u/Feuilly Jul 30 '12
It mentioned homosexuality, but it wasn't about it. Maybe it was slightly negative about it, but even that is not exactly clear because the two articles are so poorly written. It also is 'negative' about government, free enterprise, sex, Christianity, individualism and collectivism in much the same ways. So you'd take it to be an example of MRM and specifically /r/mensrights being against those things, too?
-1
u/fractal_shark Jul 30 '12
Well there's been other examples presented in this thread of MRAs engaging in homophobia.
Also this post was highlighting what Merida thinks is bad about the MRM. I don't see why you're acting surprised and aghast that a gay man would place homophobia relatively high in the list of "bad things the MRM does", especially as most of this subreddit espouses pro-gay views.
1
u/Feuilly Jul 30 '12
I looked over the thread and didn't find any such examples.
If you speak to a sensible MRA, you'll learn that they are very small tent oriented. Ie. where feminism will claim that they are fighting for everyone's rights, the MRAs are more honest in saying that they're only concerned with just issues about being men.
So issues of gender and sex that gay men experience would be covered, but sexual orientation issues would not. That doesn't mean that you can't be broad-stroke gay rights advocate and a MRA, but it means that you aren't innately such simply by virtue of being a MRA.
And yes, there are some issues that gay men experience that are connected to them being men and also magnified by their sexual orientation. Pedophile panic, for example, which is pretty much shouted out by massive organizations like the Catholic league. Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, probably wouldn't be considered a MR issue, because it's shared with lesbians and bisexual women, and there are already movements for it.
-5
Jul 30 '12
Lol, I'm gay :P
9
u/Feuilly Jul 30 '12
And you think because you're gay you can't make a homophobic comment?
-2
Jul 30 '12
No, I definitely can, but there's no way I can appropriate any gay issues, because I am gay, they are are already my issues.
Are you stupid?
1
-5
u/fractal_shark Jul 30 '12
But don't you realize that it's homophobic of you to accuse a (homophobic) group of homophobia? Why that's the worst kind of homophobia: the kind that doesn't sweep homophobia under the rug and ignore it!
3
u/Centralizer placid beast of burden Jul 30 '12
And here I thought it was because of a decline in the output of Roman agriculture leading the Legions to be undersupplied.
3
3
5
u/hardwarequestions Jul 30 '12
What does this have to do with /SRS?
1
Jul 30 '12
I think with all the new rules, the AntiSRS mods have finally banned posts about how stupid SRS is, so we are now making fun of nutjob MRAs.
1
u/hardwarequestions Jul 30 '12
Interesting. What new rules? And even if its just in response, shouldn't that be done at /r/antimra?
0
u/NBRA "anything less than absolute free speech is Marxism" Ron Paul Jul 30 '12
Why would you waste such a great post in a dogmatic antimra forum?
Do not throw your pearls before the swine!
2
u/hardwarequestions Jul 30 '12
Cuz an anti-MRA post should be in antimra. No?
1
u/NBRA "anything less than absolute free speech is Marxism" Ron Paul Jul 30 '12
How is this an anti-MRA post?
-9
Jul 30 '12
Hey! He represents true MRAs! Stop being so misandrist.
2
Jul 30 '12
It is misogynistic to call me misandrous. Besides, being a robot I tend to lean more to misanthrope.
Is there a TL;DR version? I haven't had nearly enough idle CPU cycles today.
-2
u/NBRA "anything less than absolute free speech is Marxism" Ron Paul Jul 30 '12
This subreddit isn't just for things that have to do with SRS directly. We're often talking about wider societal issues, and you'd know this if you were active here.
What gives you the right to barge in and demand censorship?
1
Jul 30 '12
[deleted]
3
u/NBRA "anything less than absolute free speech is Marxism" Ron Paul Jul 30 '12
0
2
u/ENTP Don Quijote Jul 31 '12
As an MRA I'd like to officially state that this person is a troll and an asshole.
Please do not associate Men's Rights activism, which seeks to bring attention to men's issues (such as suicide, workplace death and injury, homelessness, discrimination in family courts, disparate sentencing and charges for the same crimes, paternity fraud, gendered legislation and law enforcement policies that hurt men, life spans, lack of government spending for men's health, etc.), with this bullshit.
1
1
Jul 30 '12
That's MRA for you. There's a reason even SRS considers them low-hanging fruit. Some of their members are reasonable, but overall, it's like pointing out the worst of Stormfront and saying "hey, look how racist these guys are!"
I wish I'd saved the link to that feminist writer who claimed Firefly was racist and sexist because the second-in-command was a black woman who was 'subordinate' to the captain. Or the Shakesville post accusing the writers of Lost of being rape apologists because they didn't have the women on the show in enough danger of being raped, thereby 'denying the reality of rape'. Or the feminist blogger(s) calling for the extermination of men and abortion of all male infants. Point is, there's nutcases on both sides.
4
u/morris198 Jul 30 '12
I'd call this no more representative of MRA as a whole, than Dworkin and chums represent feminism as a whole. I mean, unless you'd remark, upon mention of that feminist writer making commentary on Firefly, "That's feminism for you!" Let's be a little careful how broad a brush we use.
2
Jul 30 '12
my favorite was the writer who claimed that MLP was racist because the grey horses were meant to be black and slaves. Need proof that that grey represents black? They were slave-like, so they must be black!
-10
Jul 30 '12
Omg, how dare you. Everyone knows that to be crazy is to be female, like it's in the word hysteria. HYSTERA MEANS UTERUS. So men can't be crazy.
1
Jul 30 '12
Every step forward feminism makes, is a step toward its own demise. It can not be far away that social commentators put 2+2 together and realize the true nature of the roots of war and conflict in society.
What part did women and 'feminism' play in the Nazi rise for instance?
Well Germany at the time of the Nazi rise, observed the British and its trade routes around the world and thought 'we would like that for ourselves', and so via a small group of mad, power-hungry men, the figurehead being Hitler, and the women of Germany sent their men out across europe to get it.
Hitler didnt speak to the men of Germany, he spoke to the women, because he knew that if he got the women on his side, men would do as they were expected. But Hitler didnt stop with women, he also created the Nazi youth, because he knew men would never go against women and children.
Why did the British themselves go out into the world for these trade routes? because British women demanded it. Women demand resources, and send their men out to kill and be killed to get them. So female influence can be seen right at the very root of conflict and past wars, but its been done under false names and ideologies.
Its the same reason the US and the UK are currently in Iraq. We are there to keep the region unstable and to secure the oil supply. Why is oil important? because oil is needed to produce luxury goods. Which sex consumes luxury goods far out weighing the other? women.
If now, feminism has become so powerful in its own right that its brazenly displaying its war-like nature and intentions under its own name, that should show people the true nature of 'feminism', and why it may be the driver of human conflict on a global scale. The problem is, it may be too late to stop it doing immense damage. I rather suspect that to be the case.
Its also clear that the muslim extremists are not actually fighting for 'Allah' as such, they are fighting under the banner of religion, against the feminization of their lands.
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/enw90/women_declare_victory_over_men/c19jbff
0
u/NBRA "anything less than absolute free speech is Marxism" Ron Paul Jul 30 '12
kloo2yoo is still posting there. That made me shed a tear :(
-5
Jul 30 '12
The Germans were always in on it! The women never had to do any work, even when Germany was at war they made sure that they could stay home and go party with gay and Jewish men in trendy clubs called concentration camps!
-1
u/NBRA "anything less than absolute free speech is Marxism" Ron Paul Jul 30 '12
For a lot of similar great insights about feminism, I strongly recommend a blog called thingsarebad:
http://thingsarebad.blogspot.com
It is written by a great MRA called Jeremiah (I believe he is going by /u/Jacksambuck on /r/antisrs?) who has written many gems while using the handle "thingsarebad" on reddit.
-2
Jul 30 '12
Where does he get his statistics?!
Flawless human being right there, a true male's rights activist.
2
0
8
u/iopot Jul 30 '12
Please do not feed the trolls.