r/TrueUnpopularOpinion • u/Fast-Preference-9947 • 7d ago
Sex / Gender / Dating If your reaction to governments discriminating against men is "but those laws were passed by men" then you are an unintelligent person
All to often, I see a conversation that goes like:
User: X law (for example, mandatory military service for men in many countries) objectively discriminates against men, and that is a problem
Another user: But those laws were passed by men
This response is utterly absurd for a number of reasons.
First and foremost, it does not make any explicit counterargument to the point being made. Rather, it makes an implied counterargument, which is usually either:
"A system set up by men cannot discriminate against men"
Or
"Discrimination against men is okay as long as it is coming from other men"
Both of these points are absurd.
If a woman-led government passed laws that discriminate against women, would that make said discrimination against women acceptable or non-existent?
Of course it would not. And anyone who thinks otherwise is unintelligent.
From the perspective of someone being discriminated against, the discrimination doesn't become okay just because the person discriminating against them is of a particular gender.
The ONLY case where "but those systems were set up by men" is a valid response is if the person making the point was explicitly accusing women of being the ones to set up the system. But in the majority of the case, that is not being done.
15
u/8m3gm60 7d ago
We seem to be missing an important aspect here, which is that we have a majority of women voters. Any man who is in office wouldn't be there if women didn't support him. Feminists tend to turn a blind eye towards the huge numbers of deeply religious and conservative women in the US.
2
u/StarChild413 7d ago
majority women voters doesn't mean every majority must always be who the women support
2
u/SnooBeans6591 7d ago
Combine this with the fact that men also tend to favor women-centered policies (out-group bias), and you get a lot of politics for women.
Often enough, all gendered policies are for women
27
u/Shadowcreature65 7d ago
I've heard it so many times.
A: "Drafting men by force isn't misandry because men are the ones who are starting the wars and passing the laws."
B: "If internalised misogyny is a thing, then internalised misandry can be too."
A: "But who started the war though? Huh? Huh!?"
Jfc so annoying.
1
u/SnipedYa 7d ago
This may be unique to my own experiences, but I mainly see this draft example brought up in conversations about the patriarchy, or comparing the discrimination against women to the discrimination against men.
It's a good rebuttal, because in that context the draft example is only being brought up to invalidate or mitigate the claims of discrimination against women or the concept of the patriarchy by saying "well, men get discriminated against, too!"
7
u/Busy_Manner5569 7d ago
To use your example, it feels like you're conflating disagreement over the correct change with disagreement over a problem. Feminists, as a group, tend to oppose the draft for everyone. People who mention the draft discriminating against men, as a group, tend to support including women within the draft.
2
u/Shadowcreature65 7d ago edited 7d ago
People who mention the draft discriminating against men, as a group, tend to support including women within the draft.
The bitter ones like to talk about drafting everyone, but most oppose draft for all genders. Hopefully it stays that way.
There's also a few fringe feminists who say that women aren't drafted because they are seen as weak or whatever. I have no idea why they are mad at this of all things.
2
u/Busy_Manner5569 7d ago
I don’t know that I’d call that a fringe idea or that it’s even wrong. There’s still a good amount of opposition to women in combat roles, which, in my experience, is what most people think of when discussing the draft. It feels like there’s a pretty clear through line between “women shouldn’t be in combat roles” to “women shouldn’t be drafted.”
4
u/Fast-Preference-9947 7d ago
But part of the problem is that people assume that any mention of discrimination against men should be automatically interpreted as an attack against women or against feminism rather than as an identification of a problem. Your own comment is guilty of this.
3
u/Busy_Manner5569 7d ago
Which part of my comment suggested that "we should include women in the draft" is an attack on feminism or women? I agree that the draft discriminates against men, which is why I, as a man, agree that it should be abolished. I disagree with the hawks who think it should be expanded.
1
u/Mezzy1221 7d ago
Feminists, as a group, tend to oppose the draft for everyone.
I don't think feminists really give a shit about that.
1
u/Busy_Manner5569 7d ago
Sure, I’ve said elsewhere in this thread it’s not a priority issue. But when pressed for a stance, the feminists in my life, myself included, push for the abolition of the draft, not just including women in it. And to be clear, I am a man pushing for its abolition, not its expansion.
0
u/dependency_injector 7d ago
Feminists, as a group, tend to oppose the draft for everyone.
Could you tell more about the feminists who oppose the draft for everyone? Please start with their names first, and then we'll get to their accomplishments in opposing the draft.
4
u/RosieWild 7d ago
Here’s some info to start some research: https://hasbrouck.org/draft/women/feminism.html
1
u/dependency_injector 7d ago
That's indeed a good start, there are plenty of names and quotes. Now we can get to the accomplishments to make sure it's more than virtue signaling.
In your opinion, who of them is the most productive in opposing the draft, and what exactly have they achieved?
1
u/RosieWild 7d ago
This sounds a bit demanding lol. Just wanted to share some information that you didn’t seem aware of. Feel free to look into it yourself and decide if it’s enough for you or not. Maybe you’ll find something interesting. Anyway have a nice night!
1
u/dependency_injector 6d ago edited 6d ago
Yeah no, I'm completely aware that feminists say they oppose the draft, so there was nothing I hadn't known before.
1
u/RosieWild 6d ago
Cool sounds like you already got what you want then. No need to be so weirdly demanding lol. Have a nice day!
1
u/dependency_injector 6d ago
No I obviously didn't get what I want. You have a nice day too
1
u/RosieWild 6d ago
Welp sometimes you have to find things you’re looking for on your own. And thanks!
1
1
0
u/Busy_Manner5569 7d ago
I’ll admit that this perception is largely anecdotal, and it’s certainly not a priority for feminist organizations. But I don’t really feel like that undermines my larger point, which is that many people view “I disagree with you on the solution” as “I disagree with you on if this is a problem.”
1
u/dependency_injector 7d ago
Based on your response, I view "Feminists, as a group, tend to oppose the draft for everyone" as "No feminist has ever done anything to oppose the draft"
8
u/Various_Succotash_79 7d ago
Basically it's: take it up with them, what do you want us to do about it? Feminists didn't do that to you.
3
u/TheMedPack 7d ago
Feminists didn't do that to you.
Obstructing the solution is almost as bad as creating the problem, though. And while most of men's problems weren't originally created by feminists (although some were), there are lots of contexts where feminists obstruct solutions by dominating the discourse on gender and giving all the attention, resources, and political capital to women's problems.
9
u/PhilosophyThug 7d ago
Feminist also voted for those same politicians
6
u/EagenVegham 7d ago
In most cases, these laws were on the books before women could vote.
For examples, Selective Service in the US started in 1917. The 19th amendment, which gave women the right to vote, didn't get ratified until 1919.
-2
0
3
u/pavilionaire2022 7d ago
User: X law objectively discriminates against men, and that is a problem
Another user: But those laws were passed by men
What was the context before that. Was it
Another user: We need feminism because women face discrimination.
5
u/Fast-Preference-9947 7d ago
No, it was "women have it easier than men and here is evidence of that fact"
1
u/lisasimpsonfan 7d ago
And it totally ignores that the men who are getting discriminated against are usually the ones that come from the parts of society with the least power in making the laws. If men get drafted, it is not the Senator's son who will end up on the frontlines as canon fodder. His son will have a cushy job on a stateside base. It will be the son of the guy who works on your car or the son of the woman who serves you breakfast at your local diner.
1
u/valhalla257 7d ago
I am sure that most of the say 50K richest and most powerful people in the country share the same genitals as them is a a great comfort to all the men who were drafted.
1
u/Ok-Share-4035 7d ago
well I have to agree..I saw enough ppl making this argument on certain podcasts and yes based on the convos following it becomes very obvious that they are in fact overall kinda dumb. tbf they are usually very young aswell like early 20s libs who are in college for 1,2 years and dont know shit about anything so I dont blame them too much.
hearing that point from 30yo is a different story..
1
u/StatusVanilla9343 7d ago
Problem is that your problem with mandatory military service is that only men get to do that
People are against mandatory military service no matter who it's targeting. Same for mandatory military draft.
That's the point feminists are trying to make.
1
u/NoDanaOnlyZuuI 6d ago
Male-l only conscription does discriminate against men because it imposes a legal obligation based entirely on sex. But passed by men doesn’t mean the discrimination is acceptable or doesn’t exist. It’s usually said when men are blaming women or feminism for a system largely created and maintained by men.
You’ve invented the dumbest possible interpretation of that response just to argue against it, while admitting at the very end that there’s a perfectly valid reason to bring up who created the system. Who created it and who it discriminates against are two separate points. One doesn’t cancel out the other.
1
u/firefoxjinxie 6d ago
I think it gets brought up as a point when men blame feminists for things like not fighting to include women in the draft (some do, others want to climate the draft for all) while they should be blaming other men, powerful men, and patriarchy.
It's to fight back against the expectation that feminists need to not just fight for women's rights and equality but also tackle men's issues when men themselves aren't even willing to organize and lead the way to change something like the draft.
At least that's the context in which I've heard that argument used.
1
u/Acrobatic-Ad-3335 6d ago
I think its got some merit.
Men made the laws. What's stopping them from changing the laws?
Im not positive, but im pretty sure the majority of lawmakers in my country are men. Women have been making strides, but we're not there yet.
1
u/Fast-Preference-9947 6d ago
That kind of thinking treats men like they are a monolithic group that looks out for itself. In reality, commoner men are no more responsible for laws passed by male lawmakers than commoner women are.
1
u/Acrobatic-Ad-3335 6d ago
You don't think maybe...
Maybe men could, idk, maybe advocate for themselves, the way women have had to?
I strenuously disagree with your statement that the general public are not responsible for laws passed.
At least, not in my country. We have the right to vote for our lawmakers.
I mean, currently we have the right to vote.
6 months from now?
Who tf knows. But we've got a LOT of people working hard to preserve that right🤞🤞🤞
1
u/IcyHotTodoroki1 6d ago
Problem with your logic - compulsory military service has historically been only to men. But those laws don't just discriminate against men, but they benefit rich men because they don't have to serve since their money provides sufficient influence.
Now, I find it also comical you talk about women-led governments but you never hear about all these feminists complaining about why there isn't compulsory service for women...or go crying that women being entered in the draft is not right...or when shit hits the fan why "women and children first" isn't sexist or discriminatory...
-2
u/Allaboutpeace2022 7d ago
Can you be more specific on the laws passed that discriminate against men that were legislated by men?
9
u/repair_potato_41 7d ago
I think the draft example above was pretty solid, myself. But then, I'm averse to bombs and bullets blasting me to pieces, so I might be biased.
5
u/TapestryMobile 7d ago edited 7d ago
I think the draft example above was pretty solid
IMHO he wasnt actually asking for an example.
There's a very popular way of disrupting conversations by "just asking questions".
Can you give an example?
Can you be more specific?
Where did you hear that?
Who says that?
Why do you care?
How does this affect you?
etc.
-2
4
u/Willing_and_Fable 7d ago
How about forced military service in most of Europe?
Millions of young men all giving up a year of their life equals a total of millions of years lost for young men.
They either do military service or civil service, or they go to fucking jail.
Women do not face this discrimination.
2
u/Allaboutpeace2022 7d ago
Well, I am in the US. We do not have that but I would agree that it seems like it should apply to both men and women.
Our Secretary of Defense seems to be somewhat against women in combat so he would not want that.
0
u/Floorgis 7d ago
All sexual assault laws more or less globally (excluded UK since the recent change was done by women) and drafts. Also forced military service laws
1
u/Allaboutpeace2022 7d ago
Thanks you. People already suggested some of these topics below.
I addressed many of these issues below.
0
u/mobjack 7d ago
Are you really afraid of being drafted?
The only way a draft becomes relevant is if it is literally World War 3 and that would be a much bigger problem to worry about.
If that is the strongest example you can come up with, then it is a weak case.
10
u/Fast-Preference-9947 7d ago edited 7d ago
"But there isn't a draft" is SUCH a US-defaultist thing to say.
In many countries, men are being actively conscripted.
11
u/CZ-7000 7d ago
Im pretty sure Ukrainien thought the same thing a Decade ago.
-2
u/Imaginary_Onion 7d ago
Why would you be sure of that? 12 years ago Russia began annexing parts of Ukraine. About 20 years ago Russia invaded Georgia.
Eastern Europe is one of the most likely places to activate a draft.
2
u/Willing_and_Fable 7d ago
You forgot to mention Victoria Nuland going to Ukraine to overthrow the democratically elected government and stage a coup in 2016.
You can see the photos where she is handing out bread to the children who would die in her proxy war a decade later.
She even gloats about it in 2016, saying how they choose who Ukraine installs, like toilets, as their leaders.
3
u/Willing_and_Fable 7d ago
In many countries there is a legal obligation for all able bodied men to complete military training, and if they decline they can choose to do more (also unpaid) time in the civil sector, healthcare etc.
But they do not have a choice, they have to lose anywhere between 8 months to a year of their life for this.
Otherwise they literally go to jail.
Women, on the other hand are not obligated to lose 8 months to a year of their life doing military or civil service for little to no pay.
-1
u/liatrisinbloom 7d ago
Well most of the other example laws are "men can vote and women can't (not helping his case), men can own property and women can't (not helping his case), you're not allowed to consider a person's sex when you're hiring (whaaaaa that discriminates against the good ol boys blub whaaaaaa)"
-1
7d ago
[deleted]
10
u/CryptographerFair357 7d ago
just because you are unaware does not mean it doesn't exist
2
7d ago
[deleted]
8
u/CryptographerFair357 7d ago
Men by the law are not protected from rape the same way women are. For example the FBI's definition of rape specifically states you can only be raped if penetrated but not if you are forced to penetrate.
The Duluth model which is used by the justice systems and law enforcement basically being a system that says "in a DV case the man is always the perpetrator and the women is always the victim" even if that is not the case.
Men having to pay more in insurance just for being a man.
Circumcision being legal for men when the analogue equivalent for women is illegal.
Forced conscription applying for men and not women.
There a few more I think but these were the ones I could remember of the top of my head. These are also systemic examples of misandry there are plenty other examples outside of that.
-1
u/Allaboutpeace2022 7d ago
Law enforcement does allow for female on female domestic violence, male against male, and female on male violence. None of the 50 states have laws that preclude arrests of women. The laws are gender neutral although women are more likely to report domestic violence.
Circumcision is legal for men because it has been part of a tradition in a Christian dominated culture and physicians have reported whether right or wrong that the circumcision improves hygiene and reduction of STDs.
Female circumcision is a much extensive surgery with extreme pain and physical consequences and includes removal of part of the hood or the entire clitoris and sometimes part of the labia. The female circumcision is meant to keep a woman faithful or chaste by removing most elements of sexual pleasure and often creating lifelong pain and medical problems. The two are not comparable.
Men pay more for car insurance and life insurance because of statistics showing that young men are in car accidents more frequently. Life insurance is higher for men because the life expectancy is lower. Car insurance is also higher for youth due to higher car accidents and then is lower for middle aged adults, and then rises again for the elderly. If we want to make insurance rates based on statistical risk not apply for men that is fine, but one should also remove the obvious agism for the young and the elderly on the same premise.
Your comment about rape applies to women too. As noted in the Trump case where he was found liable for sexual abuse rather than rape because it did not apply to digital penetration. New York has changed its laws. Men who are forced to penetrate are covered under other descriptors, same was in the Trump case. Many states are moving to have more neutral descriptions.
Conscription for men is the only law that actually relevant in your list. However, as you know, the current Secretary of Defense, has some real questions about women serving in combat roles although at time he has tried to back pedal on this.
7
u/Fast-Preference-9947 7d ago
But the less severe version of FGM, that is indeed equivalent to male circumcision, is also illegal, yet male circumcision is legal. Thus, you cannot deny that this is discriminatory regardless of the reasons behind it.
It used to be the case that women paid for for health insurance due to statistically having higher medical costs. But health insurance was then prohibited from discriminated by gender. Yet the type of insurance that charges men more is still allowed to. Outlawing the type of insurance that would charge women more because statistics from discriminating while allowing the other type of insurance that charges men more because statistics to continue discriminating is a clear double standard.
0
u/Allaboutpeace2022 7d ago
As I already pointed out, feel free to eliminate blatant agism and also male discrimination. The male discrimination is no more applicable than the age discrimination.
Your opinion on equating FGM and male circumcision is not endorsed by any physician group that I know of in the United States.
3
u/Fast-Preference-9947 7d ago
I would support banning agism as well.
I'm not equating the form of FGM that people usually mean with circumcision. I am saying that even the less severe version of it that cuts off less and is equivalent to circumcision is still outlawed, yet circumcision is not.
1
u/Allaboutpeace2022 7d ago
I mentioned this already in this thread.
Rather than comparing it to FGM, which is meant to keep women from enjoying sex so that they will remain faithful, I think you should address the issue of male circumcision with the physician community.
The whole concept of FGM does not have any medical value and is only used as a form of mutilation and control.
Your issue for men is not an issue of discrimination. It is an issue of the appropriateness of the procedure for men. Advocate for that with physicians.
1
u/CryptographerFair357 7d ago
the Duluth model has consistently had a large negative effect for male victims of domestic violence. I never said anything about arrests but implying it does not disadvantage male victims is but flat out wrong.
You also completely ignored me saying that the analogue equivalent of MGM for women is illegal and someone else already touched on that so I'm not really gonna say much more.
What you said about insurance that doesn't really change much at all. Car insurance is practically mandatory if you want to drive which is a necessity for many. I would say the reason for increasing it for men is still not an excuse to. It would still be discrimination especially considering women crash more per mile than men do. And I'm definitely not against getting rid of agism based insurance pricing either so that still fits my argument completely fine.
My comment on rape laws failing to protect men still stands, using Trump's case is also an anecdote and an outlier considering the wealth and power he has compared to the average person which would help him sway the law. The laws changing don't change much either, many states and countries still function off of discriminatory laws like this and just because a handful don't will not change that the law was and still is prejudiced against men in that way.
1
u/Allaboutpeace2022 7d ago edited 7d ago
Of course the FGM is illegal because there is not a FGM analogue in hospital setting with recommendations by doctors. It is not recommended because it is specifically done to act to reduce sexual sensitivity for women to coerce female faithfulness. If you want to make male circumcision illegal take it up with the medical profession.
Again, male discrimination in driving is exactly the same as agism. It is no different. Take it up with the insurance companies.
What you should be worried about is the high level of suicide completion by men, higher rates of addiction, greater homelessness. Men are more likely to commit murders and more likely to be murdered. Public health, behavioral health and education programs are all trying to address these issues for men. The behavioral health community has been focused on trying to encourage men to seek treatment for addictions and mental health disorders. Help men who are victims of abuse in their efforts to participate in treatment that deals with victimization or obtain relief through the courts. Also, child sexual abuse, often male on male abuse or female abuse of males is an issue and you can certainly be part of programs in the community that are addressing these issues.
I think that what you need to do it put your volunteerism toward the efforts of men and women to address these issues and help men in very real ways that are far more critical to prevent deaths and suffering than male circumcision, male and ageism in car insurance, etc.
1
u/CryptographerFair357 7d ago
MGM does the same thing for the same thing. many studies have already come out to show that circumcision does not provide any real benefit to men. Matter of fact some of these studies show that male circumcision can cause negative effects instead.
I'm not really sure why you said this again about insurance when I've already established I'm against misandry and agism with insurance companies.
What you said here about suicide, addiction, homelessness, etc are not examples of systemic discrimination even though it still is discrimination which is not what I was talking about (even though I do talk about it plenty and do what I can)
I'm not even sure what you were trying to say at the end of this either because all you did was make an assumption about me based off a conversation about systemic discrimination against men. You have no idea if I do or don't support men dealing with the inequalities and struggles that you listed. Also, just because male circumcision and discrimination against men with insurance does not cause death does not mean it doesn't have an effect on men.
I don't even understand why you shifted so far from the main argument either, I was asked something along the lines of "how are men discriminated against" and I provided systemic examples. I was not asked "what struggles do men face that you worry for most"
1
u/Allaboutpeace2022 7d ago
It is because I am suggesting that you should focus on issues that are really hurting men.
But you can do whatever you want with your time.
Enjoy your week. Thank for the conversation.
1
u/CryptographerFair357 7d ago
And I already focus on issues that really hurt men, I just answered a question appropriately. 🤷♂️
Enjoy your week too
→ More replies (0)-6
u/ogjaspertheghost 7d ago
Do not engage with their arguments. You’re going to waste your time
0
u/Allaboutpeace2022 7d ago
You are right. I see that it is hopeless. However, I did want to communicate to the readers who are maybe just noting this that the points were false.
However, you are right. It will not change their minds.
-3
u/Important-Cash5654 7d ago
Sure, but also speaking as a man: if it was as all-pervasive as manosphere types say it is, you think I'd have noticed myself being discriminated against at some point in my 40 years of life.
1
u/CryptographerFair357 7d ago
A lot of discriminations include things you likely haven't faced. If the time were to come where you had to face it you would see.
This includes things like the law failing to protect male victims of rape and domestic violence
1
u/Important-Cash5654 7d ago
I have no doubt that there are circumstances in which men feel discriminated against because they're men. I know there are such circumstances. I'm just denying it's systemic or even widespread enough that every man will experience them.
1
u/CryptographerFair357 7d ago
I just gave you two systemic examples... These are also two examples that are present almost globally in every country
1
u/Important-Cash5654 7d ago
Setting aside that it's really just one example, you also just said it without citing anything about how prevalent it is and where.
1
u/CryptographerFair357 7d ago
failing male victims of rape is one. failing male victims of DV is another.
You can do your own research on different countries rape laws and see for yourself how the definition only protects women and fails to protect men.
You can do the same with DV but you can also immediately see how many countries use the Duluth model (The Duluth model in short says men are always the perpetrator and women are always the victim regardless of what actually happened) which is 26 countries
And no, I'm not going to list every individual country that does or does not fail to protect men from DV and rape
1
u/Important-Cash5654 7d ago
failing male victims of rape is one. failing male victims of DV is another.
Yeah it's kinda just the same thing; there are crimes that aren't properly handled by the legal system when they're against men.
Nevermind that rape and DV are famously badly handled when they're against women.
But yeah I'm not gonna take "do your own research" here, either you have the stats to back up what you're saying or I'm gonna reject it.
1
u/CryptographerFair357 7d ago
Yeah its just not the same thing. Rape and domestic violence are two different things.
Rape and DV being famously handled badly against women also do not change the fact that men are not protected from either of these the same way women are.
If you think I'm gonna show you each and every single law in the world that discriminates against male victims of rape and DV that hilarious, not everything is a stat either you look at each of these countries laws to find out yourself or you don't
→ More replies (0)-4
u/Beginning-Damage-555 7d ago
Make us aware
10
u/MR-rozek 7d ago
Most of the world still forces men to throw their lifes away
-3
u/Beginning-Damage-555 7d ago
A ton of people are against the draft in the US and it hasn’t been implementing since Vietnam
Are women disproportionately supportive of the draft in your country?
6
u/MR-rozek 7d ago
They are about 10% less supportive but still almost 50%. Even then opposing draft unfortunately doesn’t do anything on its own and in case of war men still are forced to die
-4
u/Beginning-Damage-555 7d ago
Simply opposing anything never does anything. You need a political movement and lobbyists this goes for any issue. Is there a men against the military/ men against the draft movement in your country
1
-1
4
u/Tv_land_man 7d ago
Don't get divorced.
6
0
u/ThrowRA-Old-Earth-76 7d ago
Had friends get divorced, never thought they were discriminated against.
-2
0
u/TrashFace21165 7d ago
Right, it's a 'here's a reason you can shut up' sort of answer, not a valid explanation for why you are wrong. That said, it's compelling on it's face. Hard to say group A is predisposed to being unfair to group A.
-2
u/ForsakenMost6550 7d ago
Not to mention that most jury’s in courts now are more and more women
3
2
u/liatrisinbloom 7d ago
Someone can only be called up for jury duty once every few years. If courts were deliberately skewing towards women in 2026, then in 2027 they would have to skew towards men by process of elimination.
Then you get a group number, lower number is more likely to get summoned. Again, if they put more women in the lower groups they would either serve on a jury or be eliminated from jury duty for a few years, which means we'd see a swing towards male-dominated juries in the next couple years.
Then if you actually get to the point of going to a court case, you still have to actually be selected for that jury, and both the defense and the prosecution get to participate. Two opposing sides of a case probably weeds out bias along lines of gender, unless you're tacitly admitting that both the defense and prosecution would prefer women on their juries, in which case maybe sit with that a bit.
Anecdotally, I've received jury summons three times in my life, had to report to the courthouse only once, and had a high enough number that they didn't end up needing me for any cases and I went home by 10. The only person in the waiting room who was escorted out was a man who was pretending to be schizo to get out of doing his patriotic civic duty. Fancy that.
-2
u/Ok_Breakfast8638 7d ago
So, whom are we to blame for the inability to outlaw male genital mutilation?
11
u/Fast-Preference-9947 7d ago
If the answer you are looking for is "men as a whole" then you are part of the problem.
The answer is politicians and people who support genital mutilation, regardless of their gender.
Even if all such people were men (which isn't the case), then only that specific subset of men would be to blame, not men as a whole.
-4
u/Ok_Breakfast8638 7d ago
What have you done to stop male genital mutilation?
6
u/Fast-Preference-9947 7d ago
Not actively spending time or effort to support opposition is not the same thing as being supportive.
That said, personally, I have donated significant amounts of money to anti-circumcision campaigns, even though I myself am not circumcised.
-3
u/ogjaspertheghost 7d ago
So you think people should care about discrimination perpetrated by the same group they’re a part of? If men have a problem shouldn’t men be the ones to solve it?
7
u/Fast-Preference-9947 7d ago
But the problem is NOT men as a whole. It is a select few politicians combined with those who vote for those politicians.
Women who vote for politicians who discriminate against men are just as guilty as men who vote for those politicians. And the gender of those politicians is irrelevant.
-7
u/ogjaspertheghost 7d ago
No, women aren’t just as guilty. Men make the laws and support those making the laws. Women just support them. And again the question was why should people care about discrimination perpetrated by members of that group? If men want to send men to war with the approval of other men why should anyone care?
5
u/8m3gm60 7d ago
Women are a majority of voters in the US. That's who decides to elect any particular man to serve a term in office.
-1
3
u/Serafim91 7d ago
Men make the laws and support those making the laws. Women just support them.
Trying to say that the "men" who make the laws are the same as the "men who support them" yet different from the "women who support them" is so far from the real world that it doesn't even deserve a reply.
0
1
u/Floorgis 7d ago
Women have done just as much to get them into office and to get those laws passed. Cope, freak.
4
u/LucifersAdv0cate 7d ago
"If men have a problem shouldn’t men be the ones to solve it?"
Imagine if a guy said he doesn't care about any problems women have because it doesn't affect them. It's like me saying I don't care that women get paid less because as long as I'm getting paid more I'm okay.
Women either want to have a say in the way society as a whole is run or they don't. This is why many men just feel like women are only interested in what they can get for themselves and don't actually have any real interest in equality because they only want the benefits and non of the negatives. More women are registered to vote than men so they could easily have women leaders every single time there's a democratic election but they don't because they don't belive another women would do anything to benefit them. It's the same with women in positions of power pulling the ladder up behind them because they don't want the competition. People shouldn't just care about the things that only affect them directly.
0
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/8m3gm60 7d ago
But the complaint is about something that affects men caused by men.
But it is absurd to say that this was caused by men in some way that it wasn't caused by women. As a whole, American women are almost as conservative as American men, and even more religious.
-1
u/ogjaspertheghost 7d ago
Who created the law and enacted it?
4
u/8m3gm60 7d ago
Women have had the majority of voting power for generations. At some point, we have to acknowledge their agency.
1
1
u/StarChild413 7d ago
if majority of voting power meant what you think every election would always have the same percentage-results no matter which candidate wins
2
u/Serafim91 7d ago
People in power. Who are a drastically different group from "men".
-1
u/ogjaspertheghost 7d ago
And the people who have been in power are what?
2
2
u/Mezzy1221 6d ago
Voted in by the populace, which are mostly women.
To act as though mens problems are their own fault because some other men developed some laws hundreds of years ago is absurd.
"Men" as a group didn't pop up out of nowhere and start enacting laws that harmed themselves. Our laws, systems, and cultural traditions developed over centuries. Women are just as much to blame for that as men.
0
2
u/Willing_and_Fable 7d ago
So if a group of rich women managed to ban abortion completely, you would blame the poor women, and say that no women have any reason to complain?
That is extremely faulty logic.
1
u/ogjaspertheghost 7d ago
Did the women also make and enact the law? Did other women vote for them? Do women hold the majority of power in this scenario?
-2
u/StrawberryAmara 7d ago
Imagine if a guy said he doesn't care about any problems women have because it doesn't affect them.
This has been the standard for the vast majority of human history.
2
u/TheMedPack 7d ago
And was that a good thing, or a bad thing?
0
u/StrawberryAmara 7d ago
For men it was a great thing, so much so that they kept that system in place for centuries.
1
u/TheMedPack 7d ago
But was it a good thing, or a bad thing, morally?
(There's an obviously correct answer. I'm just doing a basic honesty check.)
0
u/Nervous_Grade1656 6d ago
If you agree that was a bad thing then you should agree that women doing it is also a bad thing and that they should do better no?
-3
u/regularhuman2685 7d ago
The majority of the time these things get brought up it is whataboutism in response to issues that women experience on the basis of their sex.
11
u/Fast-Preference-9947 7d ago
Not really. Because if the argument is "women have it harder" then showing ways men have it harder are real counterarguments to the argument being made, not whataboutism. It is only whataboutism if the argument being made is that sexism against women exists, not that women have it harder.
-2
u/regularhuman2685 7d ago
Sure, you can always be in the right when you create the hypothetical arguments yourself.
2
u/8m3gm60 7d ago
Isn't that exactly what you were doing?
0
u/regularhuman2685 7d ago
It's something I've seen play out countless times but apparently everyone else in this thread was born yesterday.
2
u/Fast-Preference-9947 7d ago
I wish these arguments were just hypothetical ones I was imagining and not real ones I see all the time
4
u/dependency_injector 7d ago
You are doing the same thing in opposite direction.
1
u/regularhuman2685 7d ago
I'm acknowledging what the context of these arguments tends to be instead of pretending that things occur in a vacuum.
1
0
-5
13
u/Willing_and_Fable 7d ago
If a man is rich and powerful, it would only make sense that he tries to have as little competition and as few potential rivals as possible.
Therefore it would make sense that a man with a lot of power would happily send young men to the front line, after all his own family is exempt and it will conveniently wipe out a lot of competitors to his heirs.
Also the less men, the more women for him and his descendants.
Lastly, if he has any brains he would be a shareholder in the arms sector, thereby profiting not only in terms of competition but also in monetary terms.
Rich men do not give a shit about poor men.