Early Retirement Extreme Forums

...

I'm very egalitarian. So, historically, I've agreed with feminists and progressives on most social issues. But there seems to be a trend toward vilifying the "privileged" to an absurd degree. I think the backlash to that created MRAs.

Maybe it's a caricature. Maybe it's an unflattering amalgamation of certain opinions and behaviors of real, self-professed feminists. (No True Scottsman.) These types of discussions tend to circle around a lot of generalities with very few specifics. I imagine that in any group of feminists or MRAs you'll find some number of intolerant jerks and some number of articulate rationalists.

I have been lucky to have never set foot in family court, but the many stories I've heard of institutionalized anti-male bias in the legal system (specifically WRT fathers) certainly make be believe that some sort of reform would be a good thing.

This is a tough one. I have 2 friends who have divorced/seperated from their wives/partners who have kids. In both instances the fathers have 50/50 custody. I hear continually how biased the courts are however I don't believe that this is true. I also live in Australia and not the US however I have not heard of from Americans that I know men getting really screwed over in the legal system.

I accept that this happens sometimes and I think that is terrible however we shouldn't be too focussed on the rare extreme event.

I don't believe though that any patriarchy exists. I think that this is a concept that feminists have made up. The problem is that some men believe they have copped it unfairly because of the false beliefs of feminists.

So some women make up a fairy tale to describe how hard done by they are and it gives men an excuse to do the same thing.

The sooner women and men drop these stories the better off society will be. You can make a good life for yourself if you choose too.

We are a full-blown matriarchy, with the past several generations having been raised by women (mothers and school teachers). That impacts all people's core beliefs and behaviors more than the genetalia of the President.

rfgh wrote:We are a full-blown matriarchy, with the past several generations having been raised by women (mothers and school teachers). That impacts all people's core beliefs and behaviors more than the genetalia of the President.

I don't agree with this. My counter argument is that I am now 43. I have 3 kids. They don't know anything at all about this matriarchy or patriarchy. On top of that when I was younger there was no UFC. This sport has developed in that time. If the matriarchy was so strong I fail to see how this could have occurred.

..

Stahlmann wrote: I don't want to change world, but at least prostitution should be legalised (in that way I can not be beaten by pimp etc.).

On the other hand, could it not be argued that the criminalizing of a woman's right to (sexual barter of) her own body, as well as the (arguably resultant) pimp-prostitute business model, are examples of patriarchy in action? A way of perpetuating the control of women by (select few) men?

...

I always assumed that men's rights groups were a place for white males who can't get laid to hang out and commiserate. In my day that was the local bar, but hey, times change.

edit: strange, both of those amazon links asked me to fill a captcha, anyone else get that?

...

Stahlmann wrote:

luxagraf wrote:When women complain - they can find help in feminism.
When men complain - they are mocked up.

I really didn't mean that as a joke; not being able to get laid when you want to get laid sucks. Everyone knows this, men and women. As dead poets society would have it, this might well be the source of much of industrial civilization's drive to create art. I would still argue it's part of life and there's no solution to it other than to learn to live with life not being fair and not there to grant you exactly what you want, which I realize flies in the face of the "special snowflake" notion our culture likes to instill these days.

And I don't claim to be totally up to speed on modern feminism, but I'm not sure exactly how much practical help anyone finds in philosophical abstractions.

The men's rights things seems more like men getting a bit put out that there turned out to be a club they couldn't join, which also happened to historically coincide with mass media entertainment ending all the other ones they used to join (see Robert Putnam), which more less means far fewer places for commiseration and empathy. without empathy we all end up grumpy little animals prone to lashing out.

But hey I'm old and married with three kids, you probably shouldn't listen to me. I would not have listened to me when I was in my 20s, I'd have put my headphones back on and drown me out with some fugazi.

I don't have a good understanding of the current directions with feminism or whatever it's called (men's rights?), so I don't have a whole lot to say here. I do think that there is/was a huge need for more "feminism", especially in certain areas, sex being a big one. But it seems to me that both sides have created too negative and extreme versions of themselves (Aggressive femanists and SJWs on one side, and I don't know what the name of the guys are - 4chan kids? MRA? etc.) These people. I have met people from both sides who are by normal appearances, normal people, but once they get riled up, it's clear they are out of touch with reality. It's really annoying to see cultural progress happen this way. It's like they've adopted the approach of the Liberal and Conservative political parties. That's not the way to win for either side! These kids/people need to read some Dale Carnigie.

luxagraf wrote:I always assumed that men's rights groups were a place for white males who can't get laid to hang out and commiserate. In my day that was the local bar, but hey, times change.

I believe that you are spot on for many of the men/boys we're talking about here. Chris Ryan describes this very clear in a non-judgemental way on his podcasts (Sorry I can't send you to a specific one because he rambles a ton and he has spoken about it for a bit at a time on many different episodes. I assume he's written about it at length in his latest book (that isn't you yet) called Civilized to Death, which I expect to be really good.

steveo73 wrote:

rfgh wrote:We are a full-blown matriarchy, with the past several generations having been raised by women (mothers and school teachers). That impacts all people's core beliefs and behaviors more than the genetalia of the President.

I don't agree with this. My counter argument is that I am now 43. I have 3 kids. They don't know anything at all about this matriarchy or patriarchy. On top of that when I was younger there was no UFC. This sport has developed in that time. If the matriarchy was so strong I fail to see how this could have occurred.

The reality is very complicated. Over the last couple generations, we've seen some pretty big shifts:
- Way more children raised by single mothers (and for certain socio-economic groups, often with the father completely out of the picture.. and these cases sometimes causing big problems when children do not have any responsible and present male leaders to help them grow as people)
- Way more children raised (especially the ones by single mothers) by absentee parents. Two generations ago, moms stayed at home to raise the kids. Now that is much less common. Kids are raised more by pop culture. For much of the last 30 years, that was TV. Now it's transitioning to the internet and social media - in many cases, the kids are being raised by other kids through the internet. In some cases (like 4chan) this can become all Lord of the Flies real quickly.
- There are also more cases of stay-at-home dads now, and maybe(?) more fathers who are more present in their children's lives than before (?)



Anyways, what I actually quoted you to say is that my mom loves watching the UFC and boxing. Women are socialized not to like watching men battle each-other but I think there is some genetic/physiological appeal of it for women, a different kind than for men.

@luxagraf: I agree that sexual access issues are a root issue.

I used to consider men's rights activism more legitimate, but these days I tend to agree more with @scriptbunny, that it's a position set up in opposition to a strawman.

In fact, per my previous comment regarding the criminality of prostitution, much of what men's rights activists seem to lament actually appears to be resultant from the very "patriarchy" that feminism opposes, which (IMO at least) should be understood not as a system in which men in general rule over women, but a system in which a select few advantaged men in authority rule over everyone. The word comes from the root Greek "Pater" for "father"; thus, it's not the rule of men per se, but the rule of fathers. One's life is subjugated to the "fathers" of the tribe whether your position is wife, daughter, or son (e.g. male in disempowered position).

And so you end up with systems that appear to screw the common man, but that's a feature, not a bug. Read it again: screw the common man. In language perhaps more familiar to the average MRA, "the patriarchy" could be seen as the enforcement of "alpha male" sexual selection preference, enshrined in legal, cultural, and socioeconomic form. It's actually rather analogous to the distribution of wealth: the top 1% gets all of it and designs the system to keep it that way.

OTOH, I believe there is evidence that sex is more common and more available to all in societies that are considered more egalitarian or "matriarchal". Even outside humans--aren't bonobos matriarchal?

So it could be that if the common man wants more sexual access, he should unite with feminists in overthrowing patriarchal social systems. That said, feminism, as a theory and movement, does have a lot of work to do--starting with its name--in being truly inclusive and understanding to the needs of men (or non-women, more broadly) who are also disadvantaged by patriarchy.

Spartan_Warrior wrote: OTOH, I believe there is evidence that sex is more common and more available to all in societies that are considered more egalitarian or "matriarchal". Even outside humans--aren't bonobos matriarchal?

So it could be that if the common man wants more sexual access, he should unite with feminists in overthrowing patriarchal social systems. That said, feminism, as a theory and movement, does have a lot of work to do--starting with its name--in being truly inclusive and understanding to the needs of men (or non-women, more broadly) who are also disadvantaged by patriarchy.

You are right, ATMO. If you haven't already read Sex At Dawn, and want to read about this, he (Chris Ryan) discusses what you're talking about quite a bit in the book (and also bonobos a lot)

Spartan_Warrior wrote: OTOH, I believe there is evidence that sex is more common and more available to all in societies that are considered more egalitarian or "matriarchal". Even outside humans--aren't bonobos matriarchal?

To my mind there's no question that the core issues underlying the whole mating rituals/sexual practices of industrial society and how truly f'ed up they are trace back to the christian/capitalist philosophy also at the core. But good luck taking that on. there are also far more qualified people on these forums if you really want to try to overcome these issues. My forays into alternative sexual lifestyles was over a decade ago now and I'm not sure that anything I know/experienced would still be true so I'll shut up now.

Spartan_Warrior wrote:@luxagraf: I agree that sexual access issues are a root issue.

I used to consider men's rights activism more legitimate, but these days I tend to agree more with @scriptbunny, that it's a position set up in opposition to a strawman.

In fact, per my previous comment regarding the criminality of prostitution, much of what men's rights activists seem to lament actually appears to be resultant from the very "patriarchy" that feminism opposes, which (IMO at least) should be understood not as a system in which men in general rule over women, but a system in which a select few advantaged men in authority rule over everyone. The word comes from the root Greek "Pater" for "father"; thus, it's not the rule of men per se, but the rule of fathers. One's life is subjugated to the "fathers" of the tribe whether your position is wife, daughter, or son (e.g. male in disempowered position).

And so you end up with systems that appear to screw the common man, but that's a feature, not a bug. Read it again: screw the common man. In language perhaps more familiar to the average MRA, "the patriarchy" could be seen as the enforcement of "alpha male" sexual selection preference, enshrined in legal, cultural, and socioeconomic form. It's actually rather analogous to the distribution of wealth: the top 1% gets all of it and designs the system to keep it that way.

OTOH, I believe there is evidence that sex is more common and more available to all in societies that are considered more egalitarian or "matriarchal". Even outside humans--aren't bonobos matriarchal?

So it could be that if the common man wants more sexual access, he should unite with feminists in overthrowing patriarchal social systems. That said, feminism, as a theory and movement, does have a lot of work to do--starting with its name--in being truly inclusive and understanding to the needs of men (or non-women, more broadly) who are also disadvantaged by patriarchy.

I don't believe basically any of this apart from the strawman being attacked. I still think feminism is basically evil and some men have reacted to that. I'm also not a fan of the MRA.

I don't believe that these alpha males exist. What constitutes the alpha male. The big tough fighter. The smart guy. The rich guy. It's a stupid concept. People are complex and go for people that appeal to them. The Alpha male concept is just another stupid load of crap some moron came up with.

Different people want different things. Basically everyone can get laid if they don't have stupid unrealistic standards for them personally. I think the world is a great place and these whiners need to start taking responsibility for their lives.

I know two dual-income couples with teenage kids who have recently divorced. In both, the men left while the women focused on maintaining a stable environment for the kids. One got a modified versions of joint custody so no child support. Both couples earned about the same so (I believe) there was only a small alimony paid by one of the husbands.

The moms got the houses but had to remortgage to buy out the husbands at the top of the market. New mortgage at age 45-50. The husbands got big cash windfalls. One of the dads rented a small apartment that was uncomfortable for the kids so they just spent the day then went home on weekends. The other waited until kid was just over 18. Both moms now get to feed, house and insure their newly adult children while their dads got away pretty much scott free.

In short, the women got screwed.

...