Like I said: give me any set of values, and I'll corrupt them.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Some honest critiques of the Men's Rights Movement
- Thread starter Semitone-Truce
- Start date
Like I said: give me any set of values, and I'll corrupt them.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
That is completely irrelevant and doesn't counter anything I said at all.
I'm contradicting this:
which carries with it the implication that any set of values that can be corrupted is not worth holding.
I'm saying that I don't believe in incorruptibility.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
I am not saying they were incorruptible. I'm saying if they hold up under extreme conditions they are probably pretty good. But if they start to fall apart you might want to a good hard look at them. Everything can be corrupted, but if it can be corrupted to the point where horrible crimes against humanity are done, it might be time for a revision.
All values and virtues can be corrupted to that level.
Give me a virtue that you think is completely impossible to be corrupted to the point of being used as an excuse to commit crimes against humanity, and I'll corrupt it to that level.
In fact, I'll do it with my own deeply held philosophy that's illustrated in my new signature. (No, not "Fail Faster"; that's too easy.)
In case I change it in the future, here's the statement in full: "Every single opinion I hold or position I take is always subject to change given new information, perspectives, or insights others give me."
Essentially, it's the virtue of being open-minded. I'm sure you agree that it's a good one.
Now, let's corrupt that.
Because information is always changing, there's not much reason to hold any opinion or take any stance for too long, right?
After all, we learn new things every day.
Therefore, since I'm the King, and since I hold being open-minded in such high regard, I'm going to make it illegal for any of my subjects to hold any one opinion or take any one stance on a given issue, for one whole year after the discovery of new information making that opinion or stance invalid, under penalty of an insanity conviction and being sentenced to an insane asylum for therapy. Furthermore, since being open-minded is so important to progress, and we can't have international communication confusing the subjects, I'm going to annex all of the countries I have open communications with, so that everyone can be on the same page all the time.
Last edited:
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
No, all that means is that your deeply held philosophy may need revising.
And that's the point.
It doesn't need revising at all, because it's just fine on its own and as I apply it to myself.
All virtues can be corrupted to that level, without exception. Give me one that you think is an exception, and I'll corrupt it.
Just like every single tool you can name can be used as a murder weapon.
Last edited:
In my experience, the bulk of that "confidence" is fake; just a show to impress peers and hide massive insecurities.
The amount of real confidence (that I can confirm is real, mind you) that I see in men is about the same as the amount that I see in women.
Last edited:
Leftimies
Dwelling in the Principle
I know, I was trying to imply that with "even when there is no reason to be confident" part.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
No, that's not the point. Keep revising it until it's as pure as you can possibly make it. You might even get to a point where what you have is completely different, contradictory even, from what you started with, but it will be better. Use the Socratic method. It's a process. You don't just do it once and then be like, "well looks like everyone dies, it's good enough". Revise it. Why would you want to settle for something inferior just because it's good enough?
Because the Socratic method in The Republic concluded that what amounted to an Orwellian Regime was an "ideal state".
No matter how much revision you do, what you come up with will ALWAYS be capable of corruption to the degree that it can be used to commit crimes against humanity.
While a philosophy's internal soundness and consistency is important, it's application is far more important.
Therefore, revision shouldn't be done based on theory, but based on the way an individual or group is going to apply it, the ever-changing state of things, a given situation that might require a variation or exception(I don't believe that "one-size fits all" exists, either literally or metaphorically), etc.
The time I declare myself no longer a feminist will be the time when feminism is no longer needed anywhere in the world.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
Ah, I see the source of contention here. You feel that acknowledging the actions of extreme feminists as a reflection of the core feminist values would invalidate those values and by extension feminism. This is the kind of "all or nothing" attitude I feel brings out the worst in any group. Acknowledging flaws in your values from an extreme perspective doesn't mean you have to scrap the whole thing. It's just a learning tool you can use to refine your values and better your group and yourself.
Such recognitions are often better phrased as a question, rather than a statement, because you could still be mistaken, like you are here. You're implying that, deep down, I recognize that "extreme feminism" is still a reflection of core feminist values, which I don't.
(Besides, I fail to see how you got that from my statement that you highlighted in blue.)
There's no "all or nothing" here. Feminism is decentralized, and so takes many, many forms; many feminists disagree on the various issues(Porn, for example; many feminists, such as myself, are okay with the concept of porn at least, while others aren't okay with porn even in concept). As long as the core goal is gender equality, even when we disagree on how to bring that equality about, it's feminism.
But once it becomes about elevating women above men, or man-hating, or anything that's blatantly anti-anything-with-a-penis, it's denied the core value of gender equality, and is thus no longer feminism.
I don't think there's anything wrong with denying man-haters the title of "feminist", just as I don't think there's anything wrong with denying a KKK member the title of "humanist", or someone who reveals his/her face and name the title of "ninja".
Unless, of course, you're not talking about man-haters specifically, in which case you need to actually direct me to the people you're talking about.
Last edited:
I'd like to revisit a critique I have brought up earlier in the thread, and hopefully have others weigh in on it.
Are there MRAs who support and involve issues surrounding trans-men and gay/bisexual men? If so, how? And what are the specific issues that trans men and gay/bisexual men have that MRAs recognize as important?
My critique of the MRM is that I have looked for resources within the movement that address queer men's issues and advocate for them, and I have not found any. I'd like to hear if there is an answer as to why they are difficult to find, and if there is a push to include them.
Are there MRAs who support and involve issues surrounding trans-men and gay/bisexual men? If so, how? And what are the specific issues that trans men and gay/bisexual men have that MRAs recognize as important?
My critique of the MRM is that I have looked for resources within the movement that address queer men's issues and advocate for them, and I have not found any. I'd like to hear if there is an answer as to why they are difficult to find, and if there is a push to include them.
The closest thing I've seen to that would be Jack Donovan, who is a very bizarre and bigoted person. He's gay but hates LGBT culture and is a sort of male separatist and male supremacist.
Jack Donovan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Okay, thanks for the link.
Leftimies
Dwelling in the Principle
I don't think thats what they are concerned about. It is possible that they don't perceive them as needing their immediate support, as LGBT activist groups are plentiful as it is.
Does LGBT activist groups address the issues of ordinary men? Of course not. Its not their purpose
why should MRM address theirs? There doesn't seem to be much point in extending the focus outside the group's main objective. I think thats the reason.
You're welcome.
It doesn't say much if that's the only example I know of and he's such a hateful person with very bizarre views.
I don't think thats what they are concerned about. It is possible that they don't perceive them as needing their immediate support, as LGBT activist groups are plentiful as it is.
Does LGBT activist groups address the issues of ordinary men? Of course not. Its not their purpose
Well I ask since feminism has been faced with the criticism (rightly so) from lesbians who felt marginalized, ignored, and outright denied into the fold when momentum from Second Wave was going strong. Eventually, Third Wave began to welcome and actively support lesbian and bisexual women's distinct issues as important. I would like to see more support for trans women from Third Wave (at least as far as I can see), so if there is a segment of the MRM that offers support for trans men's and gay men's issues, I'd like to see how MRAs are addressing it.