20
21

Red Pill TheoryMen's Rights vs. TRP (self.TheRedPill)

[deleted] が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]anonlymouse 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (22子コメント)

A couple things, a lot of MRAs are ex-feminists, who realised feminism doesn't deliver what it claims to. They're not going to change their base ideology about equality, because as far as they're concerned, that's actually a good goal (and why not, true equality isn't something to scoff at).

MRAs aren't doing that much in the way of begging right now. They're raising awareness about how men are affected as well, and the feminists are attacking them because they know that if people understand issues affect men too, that they'll be weak. They need exclusive victimhood, and whether you think the MRM is pathetic or not, taking away that exclusive victimhood will strike a severe blow at feminism's heart.

[–]16 Endorsed ContributorDemonspawn 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (21子コメント)

and why not, true equality isn't something to scoff at

Because true equality is currently impossible. And while it is impossible, seeking equality creates a system of female supremacy.

"Until you can demonstrate a way of convincing society to treat men and women as equally disposable, this fantasy of equality between men and women cannot exist and is not a valid argument." --Me

[–]anonlymouse 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (20子コメント)

Equality everywhere is silly, but where possible it should be done.

[–]16 Endorsed ContributorDemonspawn 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (19子コメント)

Why? What's the benefit to society?

What price are you willing to pay for "equality"? What are you willing to give up for "equality"?

[–]anonlymouse 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (18子コメント)

Depends on which equality we're talking about. As far as benefit to society, no golden parachute for women in divorce (which would be equality) would mean more families staying together which would mean less of the problems associated with kids raised by single mothers.

[–]16 Endorsed ContributorDemonspawn -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (17子コメント)

But your goal there isn't equality. It isn't equality which is good. It's ending the golden parachute for women, which changes the behavior of women to something more successful for society.

What you are seeking is the changing of women's behavior rather than equality. Again: why is equality good? What benefit does equality give society? And what price are you willing to pay for it?

[–]anonlymouse 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (16子コメント)

Yes, my goal is equality. If the divorce is lopsided in favour of women it's not equal and if divorce is equal, it's not lopsided in favour of women.

The change in behaviour is a side effect of the equality, which has a subsequent benefit for society, but that wasn't the goal. I was simply answering your moved goal posts.

[–]16 Endorsed ContributorDemonspawn -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (15子コメント)

Yes, my goal is equality. If the divorce is lopsided in favour of women it's not equal and if divorce is equal, it's not lopsided in favour of women.

But what if an older style of marriage benefited society more? What if the old standard where ex-husbands took the children in the rare instances of divorce was overall better for society? What if that lead to a massive change to how women choose men, leading to a much more successful and quicker advancing society?

Would you give that up for "equality"?

The change in behaviour is a side effect of the equality, which has a subsequent benefit for society, but that wasn't the goal.

If your goal is "equality" rather than "benefit", then which benefits are you willing to give up for equality?

You've already admitted equality everywhere is silly... so where is the line drawn? If the end result of equality (equality everywhere) is not a good goal, why should equality be a goal in the first place?

[–]anonlymouse 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (14子コメント)

I don't see any situation in which custody is assigned by gender rather than parental fitness being good. If you're going to bring up a what if, it should at least be plausible.

If your goal is "equality" rather than "benefit", then which benefits are you willing to give up for equality?

I wouldn't be giving up any benefits, I'd be receiving them. The benefits of marriage would actually be worth it if the divorce risk weren't there. It's the women who would have to give up their benefits. Of course they don't want to, but I don't care that they don't want to.

Where the line is drawn is simple. If equality is of benefit, you have it, if it's a hindrance you don't. And you make sure it's done right. Which would mean less than 1% of women as firefighters, police officers and soldiers as the rest of the 99% don't cut it for the requirements that should be asked of men.

[–]Pornography_saves_li 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (12子コメント)

Do you actually think like this, or are you having trouble making your thoughts clear? Cause you sound like a blithering idiot right now....

[–]16 Endorsed ContributorDemonspawn -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Where the line is drawn is simple. If equality is of benefit, you have it, if it's a hindrance you don't.

No further questions.