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

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/9javub/a_response_to_feminist_misinformation_from_1910/

Now IIRC, to be fair, at the very start of 2nd wave the NOW (national organization for women), while still tackling gender equality in a sexist fashion, wasn't completely bonkers, but by the end of second wave I don't think one could say that.

Oh boy NOW

Now there's a group of stinkers.

Did you hear some of them praised Ms SCUM manifesto herself?

One of them smuggled the manuscript out of prison for her.

What really surprised me is that "10% of the population" was a 1st wave thing and didn't start with SCUM

1893

Yeah, there were references back to the 1800s

Probably earlier

I've got a post on it coming up

Btw, if anyone has any examples of people saying that let me know. Exact quotes are best