[brandonfro]

It probably comes from the fact that “Men’s rights activists” are somewhat extreme considering men have dominated every aspect of society (e.g. politics, religion, sports, etc.).

The idea of “Men’s rights” seems redundant to most people in my estimation.

[RobertRoberts]

Are you suggesting men don't have the right to stand up against abuse?

[brandonfro]

I am not

[RobertRoberts]

Then are you saying it's wrong for men to be activists in support of their rights?

Maybe you can clarify your previous statement some.

The only rights I've seen or heard people being "men's activists" for (which seem to include a lot of women too) is regarding abuses against men.

[arkh]

> considering men have dominated every aspect of society

Some men. And a minority of them.

[bigiain]

#notallmen

:sigh:

Way way too many of us, and way too few of us who call them on it. "The standard you walk past, is the standard you accept."

[brandonfro]

I’d say quite a lot when you consider local municipalities, churches (at least in the south), and small businesses. Historically, high positions in those places have been held by predominantly men. This isn’t news and it’s irrefutable.

Why does it feel like people are combatant to historical facts?

[rubinelli]

The frustrating part is the logical leap: You are a man, men have historically occupied privileged positions, therefore you are privileged. A young man trying to find his first job without experience doesn't feel privileged, nor does one that suffers domestic violence. But instead of receiving support, they are told to man up.

[toasterlovin]

FWIW, men are also overrepresented in the worst that life has to offer. They're more likely to die on the job, commit suicide, and be murdered; they're expected to fight a nation's wars and risk their lives to rescue fellow citizens from perilous situations; and are less likely to attend college and more likely to end up in prison.

There are MRAs and MRA-adjacent people who are gross misogynists. But there are MRAs who make compelling points. Argue against the best version of your opponent's argument, not the worst.

[belorn]

If we go by history then both high positions and low positions are held predominantly by men.

Bottom 1%, majority of those that are homeless, almost all men.

Wast majority of people conscripted to die in war, almost all men.

Prison populations, predominantly men.

If you go by reproductive success or age, again men has it much worse on the average then women. The data is irrefutable that when it comes to the people that has it the worst outcomes, men is the predominant group.

[arkh]

Because low positions in most places have been and still are held predominantly by men.

Should more women vie for those positions too?

[1000units]

Please take this talk of gender supremacy elsewhere. It is wildly outmoded and unwelcome here, at least by me. Thank you and good day.