So the regulars in the Men’s Rights subreddit are currently discussing one of the most important — if often overlooked — issues of our time, which is: How come nobody but us sees that the ladies aren’t oppressed any more? Or, as paranoiarodeo497, looking hopefully towards the future, has chosen to put the question: “What future event/tragedy do you think will happen that will make people realize not only are women no longer deprived but in fact equal to men?”
Alas, the Men’s Rightsers aren’t hopeful that anything will wake up the snoozing sheeple. BrambleEdge, for his part, worries that men will remain oppressed forever.
![BrambleEdge 17 points 15 hours ago (18|1) Seeing as men are deprived and far from equal to women, and people don't see it now, I doubt they ever will. I sometimes fear that gynocentrism is biological and not cultural. [–]Demonspawn [-1] 1 point 52 minutes ago (1|0) gynocentrism is biological Treating women as human beings and men as human doings? Yes, it is biological. It's also why "equality" isn't, and seeking it creates a system of female supremacy.](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/bramble.png?resize=573%2C230&ssl=1)
Shrekem, meanwhile, turns to the work of eminent historian GirlWritesWhat for evidence that women were never oppressed in the first place:
![Shrekem 9 points 13 hours ago (12|3) The problem is that women were never oppressed or deprived, they just had different roles. Women are certainly not "equal" to men today, they receive special treatment and are immune to many laws that would get a man locked up for life. I recommend you watch Karen Straughan's video on "When female privilege backfires". permalink source save give gold hide child comments [–]villevillakulla -4 points 11 hours ago (4|8) I guess it depends on how you define oppressed or deprived, but it kind of sounds like you're full of shit, and "different roles" can be a blanket statement to mean anything you want it to mean. permalink source save parent give gold [–]Shrekem 5 points 8 hours ago (6|1) I would define oppression as "the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner" just like everybody else. I challenge you to come up with one example of women being oppressed in western society in the past few centuries. The treatment of women is nothing compared to real oppression like that of blacks during slavery.](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/shrekem.png?resize=567%2C377&ssl=1)
IHaveALargePenis, in addition to being highly confident about his relative penis size, is also a bit more optimistic than his peers, suggesting that the irresponsibility of evil slutty single moms will eventually end up annoying not only single men but other women as well and thus, I guess, help to spark a new wave of antifeminism:
![IHaveALargePenis [+3] 5 points 12 hours ago (6|1) Government taxing bachelors to sponsor single moms/women in general. If shit keeps going the way it's going, everything women need will be provided by a government, while working less and claiming there's still a pay gap. It won't take a genius to put two and two together and realize that the benefits women get from the government, plus the benefits they get from working are huge compared to what men pay/get out of it. But that's not when things will change, not yet. What we're going to see is a rise of single, irresponsible moms who breed and have their lives paid for by taxpayers. And part of those taxpayers will be other women, who can't find men willing to "breed with them" or marry them, etc. These women will be working 40+ hours a week easy, will sacrifice greatly, miss their chance to have kids, and realize they're paying for all these irresponsible women to have their cake and eat it to (our society is pretty good at rewarding the irresponsible). That's when things will change.](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ihavealarge.png?resize=580%2C276&ssl=1)
But Scoundrel, a more pessimistic sort, can’t imagine any scenario that would get the evil femmies to admit that men are oppressed:
Sorry, IHaveALargePenis, but you’ve been outvoted.
Meanwhile, loose-dendrite, off on a bit of a tangent, warns those who might otherwise be susceptible to feminist-think that seeing similar numbers of men and women in positions of power would not be a sign of gender equality — but rather a symptom of FEMALE TYRANNY!
Huh. I was unaware that high IQ was a prerequisite to power in our society. Did anyone tell George W. Bush?
In conclusion, MRAs have once against shown that they can use any and all evidence to “prove” what they already believe. Another flawless victory over the forces of reality.
By the way, just wanted to share this, in case you needed a moment away from doom and gloom:
http://weknowgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/twerking-cat.gif
How old were those kids, BritterSweet? Whiny little kids or whiny teenagers? (The latter comes to mind for me.)
Fictionkin? Seriously, is there any delusion that some speshul snowflake out there hasn’t created to make their sorry lives more palatable?
Universe, thank you for making animals so beautiful and human beings so absurd.
Exercise kitty! 😀
Because you are a wise wise person. I went through a very long series of “oh, I guess now that you explain it, that isn’t so weird, but that other person’s belief is really weird” before I finally got there.
I’m still at that stage – which is doubly strange. :/
Sometimes I kinda wish it would be discovered that we were actually all the personifications of Rainbow Brite characters or something, just to give us all a little humility for every time we thought that someone else’s personal identity beliefs were absurd XD
Yeah I’m with LBT on this one. My introduction to paganism was those “best selling” teen Wicca books (I know, but hear me out), the one thing from them totally worth believing? And ye harm none, do what thou wilt. Pretenous language to be sure, but an excellent philosophy. You’re not harming anyone? Cool, have fun then.
Did you move to paganism direct from fundamentalistish Christianity, Argenti?
Yep. I can do non-involved gods and goddesses, more the nature type these days, but it was a refreshing change, the lack of “god knows everything you’ll ever do before you are born, and send you to he’ll if you fuck up (in a manner you never had any free will about anyways)”
(Yes I realize not all Christianity is like that, pecunium, just email me if I just got myself into a theology discussion!)
Roughly, I think there are two meta-beliefs: That believing the wrong thing is in itself inherently harmful (or inextricably tied to harmful behavior) and that beliefs, even wrong beliefs, are not inherently harmful and harm is instead solely the result of actions that are not necessarily the results of certain beliefs.
And ne’er the twain shall meet, because the former will all try to force their beliefs on everyone else, and the latter will see that as a harmful action.
I concur, katz. I’m still going to call a misogynist an asshole even if ze doesn’t abuse or harass women. Beliefs always matter.
katz – aye!
Argenti – interesting, the non-involved gods is pretty much where I’m at, though I don’t even think of the creator as a god (small g, capital G, whichever). Louis once said his impression of the creator/originator/whatevs was “a consciousness but not a personality” and that works for me. It was very alien to any concept I’d had, but I like it because it moves right away from anthropomorphism.
… What would be the equivalent word to anthropomorphic for feline gods, aka Ceiling Cat? I don’t know the variations on “felis” well enough to figure it out.
With the beliefs, I think it kind of depends on the belief. I’d say misogyny is a harmful belief, inherently (and one can hardly not let it affect one’s behaviour). It’s all about harming others, demeaning and controlling them. But – and I also don’t want to get into the theology and related stuff again – I do not for a minute go with things like “religious belief is inherently harmful”.
I think anthropomorphic is still the word you’d want —
1: described or thought of as having a human form or human attributes
2: ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things
If you mean ascribing feline characteristics…the root for anthropomorphism is Greek, sorry.
Katz, I think you’re onto something there.
Sorry, I made that characterization overly broad–that’s my view of meta-beliefs about personal identities (and other beliefs of the abstract, personal, and/or untestable nature).
Beliefs about other people and the outside physical world are in a bit of a different camp, as are moral beliefs (since those are inherently tied to behaviors).
Kitteh — I’m thinking the difference is that you can say “I’m [religious belief]” and just have it be a statement of fact, nothing more and nothing inherently hurtful, whereas “I’m a misogynist // racist // transphobe // homophobe” inherently connotates harmful beliefs. To risk Godwin’ing, there’s a world of difference between “I’m Jewish” and “I’m anti-Semitic” (or more likely “I hate Jews”) — the former can easily be just a shrug or “so kosher dinner”? The later is inherently harmful, there’s no potential way to act on that belief that isn’t harmful.
‘Twas typing when katz’s comment posted, though they seem to more or less mesh.
Argenti said it way better than I could.
Well, I just discovered an invisible unicorn in my bathtub whose tears cure cancer if you believe in it, learned that I’m the reincarnation of Carl Sagan, and that the universe will end unless I give all my money to some guy named Steve. My life is so much better now that I understand. Yesterday I was a fairly normal, marginally employed, mentally ill person. Now I’m Special and Important and Significant to the Universe. Thanks for letting me know that reality doesn’t matter!
I’m going to go make the unicorn cry now. If I don’t make a lot of money, Steve will destroy the world.
Argenti, right: The difference is that the latter are not actually statements of personal identity, but statements applying an identity to other people: There’s no possible way to define yourself as feeling a certain way towards everyone of a group without a belief about the nature of that group being wrapped up in there, and since everyone has the right to self-define their identity, you have no right to apply your belief to them.
“And I’m a hobbit that lives on middle-earth cause I feel like a hobbit.” A statement from a kindred spirit, perhaps?
shithtatneverhappened.txt Redditor in this case is a tagged MRA, released into the wild.
Ha ha, I spelled shitthatneverhappened.txt wrong. Now I think there should be a meme for siththatneverhappened.txt
I’m sleepy, and maybe a little bit tipsy.
Whoever recognizes that quote gets a cookie.