If semantics isn’t a real problem, why do you oppose the changing of semantics so desperately to the point of insulting/diminishing those that discuss it?
You’re literally part of a “men’s right group” while simultaneously using the literal phrase for it as an insult because of Toxic Feminism.
The first step of an inclusive society that listens to each others issues is already being failed by your ideology that is asking it of others. The feminist movement that inherently shits on men’s rights are in no way representative of an inclusive group of left minded people. Recently, these groups are being labeled as the new right wing online pipeline for women.
It seems like you want to have and eat cake here.
If it is such a common problem, why is there no common inclusive response?
Re-read my last comment, follow the link, read some definitions. You either missed or skipped the point I made on my previous comment that we are not on a “men’s rights group”. You’re kind of illustrating my point for me here. Feel free to point out at the “insult” I made, I’ll gladly retract if there is genuinely one. I can’t find it.
I’m sorry, but I think it’s the other way around. As I mentioned in my previous comments, “men’s liberation” and “men’s rights” just both happen to be names referring to specific movements that both advocate for men’s interests, but largely disagree on the causes.
If you still genuinely think I’m somehow ashamed of advocating for men just cause I don’t agree with the ideas of the MRM in particular, this idea that feminism as a whole is somehow either obsoleted by the existence its extremist elements, rather than just being a parallel fight, then… what are we arguing over, exactly?
I feel like I wrote what I intended to say very specifically and then clarified when there was confusion about our disagreement.
Feel free to address my point about how the phrase “men’s rights” became such a toxic branded phrase due to an ideology that hated men having any form of organized action addressing the harms men face.
It was a label created outside pointed inwards. By definition, this is a “men’s rights movement” space, and an outside force is equally capable of branding it under the same title for the exact same reasons.
The disagreement here was your unity with said toxic viewpoints.
I feel like all of this has now been written out 3 times, so I will wait for you to respond to it before engaging further.
“Men’s rights” has literally always had a toxic connotation.
The term “men’s rights” was used at least as early as February 1856 when it appeared in Putnam’s Magazine. The author was responding to the issue of women’s rights, calling it a “new movement for social reform, and even for political revolution”, which the author proposed to counter with men’s rights.[12] Ernest Belfort Bax wrote The Legal Subjection of Men in 1896, deriding the women’s rights movement as a farcical effort by women—the “privileged sex”—to prove they were “oppressed.”
If semantics isn’t a real problem, why do you oppose the changing of semantics so desperately to the point of insulting/diminishing those that discuss it?
You’re literally part of a “men’s right group” while simultaneously using the literal phrase for it as an insult because of Toxic Feminism.
The first step of an inclusive society that listens to each others issues is already being failed by your ideology that is asking it of others. The feminist movement that inherently shits on men’s rights are in no way representative of an inclusive group of left minded people. Recently, these groups are being labeled as the new right wing online pipeline for women.
It seems like you want to have and eat cake here.
If it is such a common problem, why is there no common inclusive response?
Re-read my last comment, follow the link, read some definitions. You either missed or skipped the point I made on my previous comment that we are not on a “men’s rights group”. You’re kind of illustrating my point for me here. Feel free to point out at the “insult” I made, I’ll gladly retract if there is genuinely one. I can’t find it.
You’re misreading my response. The “men’s rights group” is the insult I’m talking about.
You are ashamed to participate in advocating for men because of Toxic feminist perspectives I’m addressing.
I’m sorry, but I think it’s the other way around. As I mentioned in my previous comments, “men’s liberation” and “men’s rights” just both happen to be names referring to specific movements that both advocate for men’s interests, but largely disagree on the causes.
If you still genuinely think I’m somehow ashamed of advocating for men just cause I don’t agree with the ideas of the MRM in particular, this idea that feminism as a whole is somehow either obsoleted by the existence its extremist elements, rather than just being a parallel fight, then… what are we arguing over, exactly?
I feel like I wrote what I intended to say very specifically and then clarified when there was confusion about our disagreement.
Feel free to address my point about how the phrase “men’s rights” became such a toxic branded phrase due to an ideology that hated men having any form of organized action addressing the harms men face.
It was a label created outside pointed inwards. By definition, this is a “men’s rights movement” space, and an outside force is equally capable of branding it under the same title for the exact same reasons.
The disagreement here was your unity with said toxic viewpoints.
I feel like all of this has now been written out 3 times, so I will wait for you to respond to it before engaging further.
“Men’s rights” has literally always had a toxic connotation.