All true points

But that doesn’t mean men should go to prison without evidence, is all

@Indigo I normally try to present arguments and see the other's side, but your opening indicates you have no capacity for either. When you can't even agree on terminology and definitions, there is a problem, because such concepts are outside of you. You can't write the rules of a word to match your whim. Humanism is the general application of advancing the human race. It's wide and open. To say that specifically fighting for one aspect of humanism (female humans or male humans) does not fit under that umbrella is worrisome.

@Dan da Dad I think it's more of a case of saying that feminism doesn't fight for women's rights, but women's supremacy.

The dictionary definition of feminism is the belief that men and women are equal, but in feminisms practice this is not what is being done

Oh I love the debate of the application of feminism and humanism versus practice versus theory...it's just when he said "Feminism is not humanism, men's rights is not humanism. Humanism is humanism." That shows a distinct lack of word awareness that is difficult/impossible to debate with.

It concerns me that his definition is so limited that the practice of humanism does not count as humanism

Foundational definitions for an argument are important, imo

Oh well,
Feminism=Advocacy of WOMEN'S rights on the basis of equality of sexes.

Mens Rights likewise concerns with advocacy of the rights of men based on equality.

Humanism: system of thought attaching prime importance to human

Feminism and men's rights are not full humanism.
Feminism advocates for half of the humans while hurting the men.
If the men's rights movement is in place of feminism today, It will advocate for the rights of men and hurt women.(but nowhere as near as feminism hurts me. There's a lot of scientific literature about the empathy gap).

Both are incomplete ideologies concerning with half of humanism and ignores the rest.
Both will be bad if existing in a vaccum. Both are necessary for anything near equality to be reached.

I prefer to think of us as an offshoot of Egalitarianism that sees men's problems as the primary ones at the current time.

Obviously, our focus would shift if we needed to address another group

The understanding that there is a giant umbrella of human advancement, and that it can be broken down into subsections, is integral to humanism. At any given time in our history, we've gone through phases of advancement for Colonial Right, then Slavery/Freeman's Rights, then Soldier Rights, then Female Rights. The spotlight goes further back than that, and it will go further than that in our future. Thing is, there will always be one umbrella: Humanism. To spite a group denies that in theory, it is a human group, advancing human rights. Now, in PRACTICE, some take up arms with the concept in a damaging fashion. Corruption of humanism is rampant. We cannot forget that at the core, advancing human rights is good thing, even in small section, despite the perversions we see on the surface sometimes

If we could quantify rights, and women feel they could go higher, and they use what they perceive "Men's Rights" as a benchmark, then they are still, mathematically, advancing women, which is, overall, advancing humanity

A movement ceases to be humanism if it hurts the rest. Corrupted humanism is no longer humanism. It's as simple as that. And humanism is a lofty ideal.

It's more than semantics. We're all on the same team, just fighting different battles for the same war. We need to correctly identify allies

Corrupted humanism is not humanism, but Women's Rights, or Men's Rights, or Rights of those in Sex Work, or Rights of those going Hungry...those are all viable fights.

Anyone can pervert those fights for gain

That's why we don't call it humanism and it never will be. Since it advances their rights at the cost of others. Men's rights could be nearer to humanism than feminism. But humanism is an utopian ideal in itself.

It's not that I don't understand your position. It's that you limit your potential and growth for any cause if you compare it to others. If you understand that more rights for women is more rights for humans, then you can be more at peace. If you feel that rights are like pie and in order for them to have more, we must have less, then you must view us as hoarders, deliberately holding others back from succeeding. Is that humanism?

Actually more rights for women could be(and is at present) less rights for men. Both men and women don't exist in vacuum.
People say that equality is not a zero sum game. But is actually is in many respects.
What we need is we need to find the balance between rights of men and women.
For example, meetoo movement and decreasing degree of evidence to convict is technically, furthering the rights of women(more rape convictions=more justice for women) . But it's disastrous for men.

It doesn't actually give more justice for women though. Just less justice for men.

It's actually more justice

Everyone should have all rape rights (protection from, and prosecution of). To say women need more than men is wrong. To say women need more is fine. To say men don't need it (or even need it as much to the degree of women) is wrong. To say that, by numbers, women need it more often, could be statistically correct (Could).

But it isn't locking up actual rapists!

Since decreasing the bar of evidence=increases the number of men jailed= decreases the amount of rapists going free... even if thousands of innocents are jailed

Right. The victim should not be the focus. The crime and the criminal should

It's actually tying up the courts so less real rapists go through it

Again, you can't lump in the corrupt with those fighting the good fight.

I see what you mean, but the chances are that it skips real rapists

I think I kinda see where you are coming from, but to fix this we need an equal viewpoint

For example. A higher pension age for men is more rights for women

But the most rights for both would be to lower the age men are penionable

Indirectly, but provable

Through continued taxing from pension age men, socialist policies largely favoring women gets funded better.

Obviously, to pass it through congress, the presentation would have to change, but again: Provable. #maths

need to get some sleep. It's already 12:30 here.

Damn. Good night, bro. Keep fighting the good fight

I think at the very least, police should be prohibited from withholding pertinent evidence that could exonerate the defense

As we saw in the UK more than once

@Dan da Dad you too bro

@King Bean 1st wave feminism was a lot more flawed than you might think. Second wave feminism was quite awful. https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/9v6tqj/a_list_about_feminism_misandry_for_anyone_who/

http://www.societyforhistoryeducation.org/pdfs/M15_Miller.pdf