Categories
bunnies MRA whaaaaa?

The Men’s Rights subreddit has finally broken my brain

Me reading the Men’s Rights OP (re-enactment)

Ok, they’ve finally done it. A post in the Men’s Rights subreddit has turned my brain to mush.

It's been said in decades we will look back with disgust at how we treat animals in order to eat. I think the greater disgust will be, how we treated men in the past three to four decades in order to breed.General (self.MensRights)

submitted 3 days ago * by benderXX

I know that having a child is a taxing experience for women. Historically women died at insane levels in childbirth. I think it's safe to say Nature has fixed some self-serving bias in favor of their health and their child's health at the expense of the big oaf who wandered onto the straw mattress. But we confront men and encourage them to abandon the evolutionary bias in favor of violence, and yet we do no such thing when we see a reflexive act in SOME, not ALL Women who are prone towards greed and violence. There is a pass handed constantly. It's unhealthy and the number one reason (in my opinion) why there are fewer people having kids, or even thinking about it. The stakes are just too high for men.

Blerp.

I mean, this post got 90 upvotes from the r/MensRights crowd. Can anyone explain to me what the fuck this dude is talking about?

Follow me on Twitter.

Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.

We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

44 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Correction Automatique
Correction Automatique
30 days ago

Ummmm, it’s news to me that nature has a self-serving bias towards women and children so that we don’t die in childbirth as often as historically? I think that’s science, but ok. As for it being at the expense of some oaf, it feels like he’s conflated childbirth with IVF and thrown “I’m not getting laid” into the mix. As for the stakes being too high for men as the reason why more women are choosing not to have children, I’ll believe that when he has to birth one. I suspect his perceived high stakes have more to do with his lack of success on the dating scene and he has to blame women/nature/society for his shitty, unattractive views.

Does that help? It’s more of the same shite, just a rearranged word salad.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee
weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee
30 days ago

It couldn’t possibly be that fewer people are having kid, and when they do have them, they have them in fewer numbers because of a combination of available birth control and increased income inequality with less generous safety nets. Nope. It must be that men aren’t allowed to women but women are allowed to hit men. I think that was what the point was?

Katherine the Adequate
Katherine the Adequate
30 days ago

So survival is a zero sum game and if women and children survive longer, it means men won’t? To go back to the natural order of things, women should die in childbirth and children should die of, I don’t know, diphtheria or something to set things right again?

I don’t know, that’s my guess.

Amadaun
Amadaun
30 days ago

Jordan Peterson, is that you?

Battering Lamb
Battering Lamb
30 days ago

@Weirwoodtreehugger: Don’t forget concerns about climate change. I have plenty of acquaintances who explicitly mention their carbon footprint (Children add a lot) and the state the environment is in as one of their primary reasons for not wanting children.

As for the OP: whenever I hear concern about declining birth rates, I feel the motivation is either ‘nobody will take care of me when I’m older’ or the 14 words. But I’m willing to admit I’m very cynical about that might give me tunnel-vision in that regard, so if someone has possible alternative interpretation I’d love to hear them.

Kat, ambassador, feminist revolution (in exile)
Kat, ambassador, feminist revolution (in exile)
30 days ago

But we confront men and encourage them to abandon the evolutionary bias in favor of violence, and yet we do no such thing when we see a reflexive act in SOME, not ALL Women who are prone towards greed and violence.

If I understand him correctly, this MRA is saying that only some women are greedy and violent. Not all women? Now my brain is broken.

Mogwitch
Mogwitch
30 days ago

@Battering Lamb – I think there are some legitimate concerns about ageing societies. Younger people can bear an unfair economic and social burden, as older people have more healthcare needs and are less able to help with socially necessary labour. Older societies might be more conservative, less focused on new challenges – you can see the huge age gap in the way people respond to climate change for instance. It looks more scary to people who know they’ll be living with it for decades.

I live in a country where the average age is 44.5, and the typical voter is retired. While I don’t think Germany is irredeemably conservative and there are many insightful, engaged, wise elderly people out there, this effectively means that people who are not working and so tend to be slightly insulated from economic and social change, are making the decisions for people who are still doing the work.

Not to say that these are at all the concerns expressed by the right, or that the environmental benefits of reducing our population might not outweigh those concerns anyway.

Last edited 30 days ago by Mogwitch
LollyPop
LollyPop
30 days ago

@BatteringLamb

As for the OP: whenever I hear concern about declining birth rates, I feel the motivation is either ‘nobody will take care of me when I’m older’ or the 14 words. But I’m willing to admit I’m very cynical about that might give me tunnel-vision in that regard, so if someone has possible alternative interpretation I’d love to hear them.

I think for lots of right-wingers/mras/etc the concern over declining birth rates relates particularly to white births. They think too many of the wrong people are having too many kids while selfish white women aren’t having nearly enough, making them a “minority in their own country”.

Other shades of right winger (the cleverer kind) worry about it because less kids = less consumption = slowing of growth economy. For companies like Nestle, a huge part of their share price comes from the fact that in countries such as Nigeria (where their lobbyists undermine efforts for public water projects) if you want to drink safe water you have to buy it bottled, and Nestle are pretty much the only provider. They absolutely do not want a) a reduction in poverty and b) people having less kids.

Also I guess in our current capitalist hell-scape having an aging population isn’t a great thing. It increases the tax burden and slows productivity.

Battering Lamb
Battering Lamb
30 days ago

Thanks for the insights. Profit had to be in there somewhere of course.

While personally, I’d see those concerns as more reason not to have children of my own, that would be a prisoners dilemma reasoning (unless everyone contributes me and mine are ‘screwed’, so it’s better not to bother) which is an anti-social attitude, because it makes things more difficult for those who do have children. But I never wanted children to begin with, so that colors my viewpoint as well (and is more than enough reason on its own).

The aging population concern I kinda get. The concern, that is. Over here the average population is 41.6 (Hi neighbor! Greetings from across the western border!). I’m not sure if that outweighs the reasons for not having children. Or if migration from countries with higher birth-rates couldn’t offer a more suitable solution (rightwingers would absolutely hate that idea, which alone makes it something to consider :P).

Surplus to Requirements
Surplus to Requirements
30 days ago

OT, but our fickle and not especially smart Prime Minister called an election here and now the fucking Tories are polling neck and neck with his Liberal party. If Tories get in power at the federal level during the pandemic, I’m probably doomed. Maybe we all are.

Also, the date for the next day with reasonable walking weather keeps getting pushed back and pushed back. It had been Tuesday (today) until yesterday, when it got pushed back to Thursday. And now I see it’s been pushed back further, to Friday. I need to restock some supplies now, not three days from now! How do I stop things like this from happening? If there’s a day coming up with good walking weather I need a way to nail it in place until I get there …

moregeekthan
moregeekthan
30 days ago

Not sure why I am taking the time to parse this, but he seems to be saying that society puts pressure on men to not do bad-man-things, but does not put a similar pressure on women to not do bad-woman-things. (citation needed) And this is somehow causing declining birthrates. (citation needed, underpants gnomes don’t count).

Alan Robertshaw
30 days ago

I like the opening sentence; but I cannot for the life of me suss out what the rest of his argument is meant to be.

It’s like I had a run-in with the MRA mafia, and they made me an offer I couldn’t understand.

Ohlmann
Ohlmann
30 days ago

I would upvote that if I were on that subreddit, purely because for once it don’t actively advocate pedophilia, child grooming, or mass murder.

What it say is otherwise a mystery to me.

bekabot
bekabot
30 days ago

“I always wanted Stacy, and I finally got Stacy, but then I found out that Stacy can be greedy and quarrelsome, and that evolution didn’t spare me the trouble of having to deal with these traits. My own predisposition is to say that the battle for existence should have wiped the cussedness out of Stacy thousands of years ago — I mean, cussedness is useful to me but not to her, right? — but it looks like the battle wasn’t fought on my behalf. I don’t know, maybe it’s a prejudice on my part, but I always thought a woman who looks sweet and inviting should be sweet and inviting, and now I find out that it ain’t necessarily so. Result is: I feel cheated. My God, do I ever feel cheated. Life has been a waste, and existence is barren and vain. Dammit.”

{See: Lydgate and Rosamund in Middlemarch.}

Scildfreja Unnyðnes
Scildfreja Unnyðnes
30 days ago

Lol, why do these doods always turn their thoughts into a heckin’ mountain climb? I feel like I need to pack a bag lunch to parse their meaning.

Dood’s upset that society doesn’t give him a perfect tradwife as payment for behaving like an adult. As if women aren’t socially punished for being greedy or violent. Yeah, women can do anything they want without penalty, sure.

Of course the reading MRA will read that as me being dismissive of men who are trapped in relationships with abusive women. Which is the opposite of true. Women are abusive, and society does give them a pass more than men. This is because – brace yourselves for it my doods – the heckin’ Patriarchy does that to them. Our patriarchal society diminishes men who aren’t domineering over women, and so erases the abuses that women can do to men. It’s Patriarchy my doods.

Sweet Sif on a surfboard, these people are exhausting!

Kimstu
Kimstu
29 days ago

The main argument of that strange post actually could be parsed in a way that makes some sense, as follows:

Society often tends to ignore or downplay intimate partner violence and other forms of abuse and exploitation committed by women against men.

That’s a reasonable point, as @Scildfreja said. But then he surrounds that nugget of perception with a bunch of the usual pseudoanthropological nonsense:

This happens because “Nature” makes us predisposed to protect women more than men because women die in childbirth so much. Nope, the minimizing of violence and abuse by women is necessary to the patriarchal narrative in which women are weak and helpless and a “real man” can always easily control and dominate a woman. If a woman is abusing a man then that’s contradicting the narrative and we can’t talk about it, except in the context of aggressively punishing the “demonic” woman and/or humiliating the man for being “weak”.

This is the main reason why there are fewer people choosing to have children: men are scared that society will give the mothers of their children a pass on abusing or exploiting them. Nonsense. The main reasons for declining US birthrates (and in many other parts of the developed world) are that (1) women are no longer as economically dependent on men and are more able to leave partners who abuse or exploit them; and (2) childcare and other costs of parenthood in our very family-unfriendly economy are just too expensive for more and more people.

Last edited 29 days ago by Kimstu
Alan Robertshaw
29 days ago

Don’t birthrates also drop when you have better health care and social safety nets like pensions?

Like people don’t need to have as many kids if there’s more of a chance they’ll survive to adulthood; and the parents aren’t as reliant on children providing for them in old age?

Surplus to Requirements
Surplus to Requirements
29 days ago

@Scildfreja Unnyðnes:

Lol, why do these doods always turn their thoughts into a heckin’ mountain climb? I feel like I need to pack a bag lunch to parse their meaning.

Bag lunch, schmag schmunch; this one warrants packing some bottled oxygen.

Kimstu
Kimstu
29 days ago

@Alan: Don’t birthrates also drop when you have better health care and social safety nets like pensions?

Yup, but they rise again among the wealthy who can afford to hire all the childcare help they need.

Alan Robertshaw
29 days ago

@ kimstu

That was interesting; and I must confess, a little surprising. It does make sense though. I wonder if that’s just a US phenomenon or if it also applies in other countries? I don’t know if it’s true or not, but the impression I get here (UK) is that there’s less reliance on nannies and other types of domestic help here; even with people who might be able to afford that. I know some pretty well off people, and whilst they might hire babysitters for an evening out; they generally look after their own kids. They might not be representative of course.

Ohlmann
Ohlmann
29 days ago

@Alan : for what it’s worth, solid maternal support (like school for year 2-6, nursery, things like that) is linked to higher birthrate.

Given that it’s a form of social safety net and healthcare, I would argue that the form of social safety net is very important. If your help is shaped to help people work 50 hours per week, the birthrate will go down. If your help is shaped to make it easier to get children, the birthrate will go up.

Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Buttercup Q. Skullpants
29 days ago

I think he’s complaining that it’s unfair that modern society has given women the gift of not dying in childbirth, but men didn’t get any corresponding gifts. Instead they got the horribly crushing burden of no longer being able to hit their wives free of divorce/legal/social repercussions.

(I’m not sure why he’s ignoring all of modernity’s other gifts, like antibiotics, frozen pizza, and motorized farm equipment, but I guess he’s narrowly focused on male-female relations, and specifically what things can be leveraged as weapons to control or weaken an adversary partner. He sounds like a delightful catch.)

(He’s also ignoring the fact that modern medicine still hasn’t equalized the burden of gestating, carrying, birthing, nursing, and raising children. All he’s being asked to do is not hit people. And be an oaf on a straw mattress for five minutes.)

Then he goes on to vastly overstate the risk of violence from female partners in order to explain away his own lack of dating success, as Correction Automatique said. A not inconsiderable number of these entitled guys, lacking perspective, experience rejection from women as actual violence, combined with slavery, the Holocaust, and World War 3. It’s THE WORST THING THAT COULD EVER HAPPEN IN HUMAN HISTORY.

@Alan

It’s like I had a run-in with the MRA mafia, and they made me an offer I couldn’t understand.

“Nice syntax ya got there. Be a shame if something happened to it.”

Last edited 29 days ago by Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Alan Robertshaw
29 days ago

@ buttercup

Only peripherally related, but you reminded me of this. An image that many people can relate to down here.

comment image

ETA: As seen here

comment image

I do think it’s unfair to deny them an education though. If anything, that would divert them from a life of crime. Or make them cleverer at nicking chips. I guess it’s a double edged sword.

Last edited 29 days ago by Alan Robertshaw
Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Buttercup Q. Skullpants
29 days ago

@Alan: Heh! Leave the chips AND the cannoli.

I’ve had seagulls steal sandwiches right out of my hand. I’ve also witnessed them delve into my backpack, remove a Ziploc bag, and undo it to get at the grapes inside (while I shouted and waved helplessly from the water). They’re criminal masterminds who will stop at nothing.

Alan Robertshaw
29 days ago

@ buttercup

I had a seagull snatch a vegan pasty; then a few seconds later drop it back on me. So, one failed convert there.

Redsilkphoenix: Jetpack Vixen, Intergalactic Meani
Redsilkphoenix: Jetpack Vixen, Intergalactic Meani
29 days ago

@Alan,

Reminds me of the signs that can be found posted about not feeding the bears here in the wilder parts of North America. Except those are more for safety’s sake, given how bears are much larger than humans, and have few qualms about having one for lunch on a whim. Plus a bear that can’t feed itself without human handouts is going to be in a major bind come the end of tourist season in the fall, and they need to put on the pounds to last through the winter on.

comment image?v=1519302247

comment image

Those signs can be bought online, btw. If anyone else wants one for themselves, that is.

Ohlmann
Ohlmann
29 days ago

I don’t remember if it’s gulls or another related birds, but one of the most harrowing read I have had in biology is the description of a sea bird learning how to hunt on land.

—— TG WARNING – ARGUABLE CRUELTY —–

The bird was big and mean enough to overpower small mammals easily enough ; the problem is that his beak wasn’t adapted to predation. So the bird used his weight and two feet to keep the prey restrained, then slowly opened the belly and eat what was inside. Slowly because the bird did not know how to do it well and had a bad tool for that task. Meanwhile the prey took a long time to die, since being slowly sliced open and eaten isn’t a particulary clean or quick death.

—— END DESCRIPTIONS —-

So, in a sense, I would feed a bear more readily than a gull if I had to feed either. At least if the bear decide to eat me he will competently do it.

Alan Robertshaw
29 days ago

@ redsilkphoenix

Someone speculated the gull may have thought the pasty was a tortoise and my head a rock. I find that a bit unlikely though. How would a gull even know what a tortoise was?

My theory is he was just a git.

@ ohlmann

Well they are basically dinosaurs.

Luckily, whilst I am a mammal, I don’t think anyone would describe me as small.

Chris Oakley
Chris Oakley
29 days ago

OT, but Rolling Stones drummer Charlie Watts has died.

GSS ex-noob
GSS ex-noob
29 days ago

Translation: I hate women.

HTH.

Battering Lamb
Battering Lamb
29 days ago

@Ohlman: A quick google of ‘seagull hunting pigeons’ shows that this is a worldwide phenomenon since the lockdown started and also before that. Apparently they also attack rats and dogs. But pigeon-hunting seagulls have been around way longer. in 2014 there was one in Hyde Park, and the reason I googled it was the first time I heard about it was one in Vatican City (which for some reason strikes me as a hilarious subversion of what some would call ‘the natural order’. Those who are wrong about it).

Opportunistic carnivorous behavior is something often overlooked in herbivores too: deer or cows will eat meat if given the opportunity.

Dalillama
29 days ago

@Battering Lamb
It would be more correct to say that animals commonly thought to be obligate herbivores can eat meat and sometimes choose to do so*. They won’t preferentially eat meat when available the way bears do, and won’t ever subsist entirely or even principally on it. Doesn’t work at all the other way around: obligate carnivores like cats and weasels cannot derive sustenance at all from the vast majority of plant matter, and must have a diet that’s principally meat ( this is why dogs can get by fine on cat food but not vice versa). Turns out that a digestive tract that makes meat into meat can be a lot simpler than one that turns grass or bark into meat.

*Which has been known for some time but little remarked in the literature because of the deeply unnatural environment in which it happened. Remember Mad Cow Disease?

Steph
Steph
29 days ago

Surely the reason people are having fewer children is because for the first time in human history having children is…a choice?

Decades or centuries ago, you got married young (as you pretty much had to) and unless you were physically unable, children would follow. Now with effective contraception people can actually plan their families. And that’s not a bad thing.

Ohlmann
Ohlmann
29 days ago

@Steph : contraceptives were known since at least egyptians, probably before. And while it’s hard to be sure of when people widely understood which kind of sex can lead to children, it probably was rather early too. So childrens weren’t automatic consequence of not being asexual either ; more a social and long term need.

Social and long term here mean that people expected you to have children, and having children is useful both for your old age and to have more redundancy in your family. (like if you don’t have children and break your arm, I pity your significant other during the time you mend that)

Also, people in the middle age actually didn’t get that much more adult children than now. They did have more babies, because infantile mortality. It’s partially true that it made them less able to plan for their family – if you wanted 3 children back then, you’d better have 4 or 5 pregnancy to account for mortality, and can end up with 5 or 0 surviving children depending on luck. Still, pregnancy did not happen randomly even back then.

So, in short, no it’s far from the first period where humans can choose to not have. It’s sort of true that they can plan mor precisely, but humans alway have an habit to plan around pregnancy.

Which make senses : lions and a lot of mammals also do that, albeit in arguably cruder ways.

Battering Lamb
Battering Lamb
29 days ago

@Dalilama: Thanks for the clarification!

Lumipuna
Lumipuna
29 days ago

Alan:

I had a seagull snatch a vegan pasty; then a few seconds later drop it back on me. So, one failed convert there.

Battering Lamb:

A quick google of ‘seagull hunting pigeons’ shows that this is a worldwide phenomenon since the lockdown started and also before that. Apparently they also attack rats and dogs. But pigeon-hunting seagulls have been around way longer. in 2014 there was one in Hyde Park, and the reason I googled it was the first time I heard about it was one in Vatican City (which for some reason strikes me as a hilarious subversion of what some would call ‘the natural order’. Those who are wrong about it).

Opportunistic carnivorous behavior is something often overlooked in herbivores too: deer or cows will eat meat if given the opportunity.

Of course, seagulls are normally quite strictly carnivorous; they just typically hunt fish rather than other adult birds. AFAIK they also often scavenge on carcasses of mammals and large fish, and hunt eggs and chicks of other seabirds, and sometimes they opportunistically hunt small rodents such as lemmings.

(No confirmation on whether Alan’s pastry was dropped as a performative meat-eater rejection of perceived vegan proselytism, or for some other reason.)

I think what happens when some animal species adapt to living in cities is that they find there’s less competition than usually, especially in the niche of large predators. Therefore, any predators that are present in the city (such as seagulls) get relatively creative in their hunting behavior if there’s prey (such as pigeons and rats) that is abundant and not very accustomed to dodging predators.

Also, I thought about this with regard to the booming population of proud, brave suburban capybaras in Nordelta, as they probably have no jaguars or whatever animal normally eats capybaras.

Frey
Frey
28 days ago

This reminds me of a Dave Chappelle skit about a Gay chapter of the KKK
 
The Gay KKK hate minorities “in a special way … with compassion”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ4hYdxMIzY
 
 
@Surplus to Requirements
I don’t know Canada from Granada, but that Jagmeet guy seems nice.

 

(No confirmation on whether Alan’s pastry was dropped as a performative meat-eater rejection of perceived vegan proselytism, or for some other reason.)

 
Captain Ockham the Obvious tells me the gull dropped it by accident.

Last edited 28 days ago by Frey
Surplus to Requirements
Surplus to Requirements
28 days ago

I don’t know Canada from Granada, but that Jagmeet guy seems nice.

Yeah, but he also has no chance of winning. His party is polling a distant 3rd so one of the other two is sure to form government.

Frey
Frey
28 days ago

@Surplus to Requirements
Aren’t coalitions possible if no party secures a majority? Trudeau might have to come begging for his party’s support.

Scildfreja Unnyðnes
Scildfreja Unnyðnes
28 days ago

I’m not as chuffed about the federal NDP as I ought to be. I can’t see them being all that effective if they get power. Not because their policies will be bad per se! Just that any government they might form would be dominated by politics instead of policy.

I think i’ve become jaded! How terrible. I’m sure that’ll clear up before long. I should really just have some lunch, probably.

Surplus to Requirements
Surplus to Requirements
28 days ago

There’s also the minor matter that the NDP has won less often than the Cubs. As for coalition government, we have that now and it has been maybe a little bit better than a Lib majority government, but the Grits have been able to do anything for which they could get either NDP or Tory support. And based on the polling data the continuation of this state of affairs is the best-case scenario, with that and a Tory government being the likeliest two outcomes.

What I can’t figure out is where the Tories get all their votes from. The middle class is shrinking, the working class/unpropertied are growing, the richy-rich have never been more than a very tiny minority, and Tory policies are basically about appealing to the homeowning salaried middle class to get the bulk of their votes. (Which means they won’t do a thing to address housing affordability, since existing homeowners would need to see their property values drop precipitously! Neither will the Grits of course, since they have to peel away some of those same middle class votes to get enough to win, in turn because the NDP eats into their left flank. But with the middle class collapsing you’d think there’d be a leftward shift in the electorate … of which there’s as yet no sign.)

Frey
Frey
28 days ago

What I can’t figure out is where the Tories get all their votes from. The middle class is shrinking, the working class/unpropertied are growing, the richy-rich have never been more than a very tiny minority, and Tory policies are basically about appealing to the homeowning salaried middle class to get the bulk of their votes.

It’s hard to deny the narrative that Trudeau “cares nothing for ‘the common man’ and only wants to be ‘woke’”
(e.g. Urban Dictionary: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Peoplekind)
 
And if you have a binary worldview that must mean being anti-‘woke’ is synonymous with caring about ‘the common man.’

Reality is non-binary.

Surplus to Requirements
Surplus to Requirements
28 days ago

No Tory cares for the “common man” either, unless he’s pulling down a six figure salary, used to do so, or is wealthier even than that. And no Tory cares for non-masculine-identifying people, period.

So the smart response to that would be to vote NDP, surely? :/

Frey
Frey
28 days ago

By binary worldview, I mean that people tend to divide the world into two teams, like Coke and Pepsi or Autobots and Decepticons, or in politics (usually) Left and Right.
 
Despite the animosity between Centrists, Socialists and Tankies; right wing media portrays the Left as a monolith.
 
So, if Trudeau and the Liberals are left wing and the NDP is MOAR left wing, to a casual observer who doesn’t know much about politics, the NDP is just MOAR Trudeau.