×

38
39

I Stand With MenGeneral (self.MensRights)

submitted by Eliyahu4788

[removed]
all 45 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]Exciting-Cat-8862 5 points6 points  (5 children)

“when their rightful place is in leadership”- yeah no i’m sorry that told me everything i needed to know about you. this is supposed to be a men’s rights sub that brings light to male related issues and advocates for them- not an anti women sub...

[–]maxhrlw 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I don't think there's anything inherently anti-woman about that..

Comes back to the personality bell curve. When it comes to traits that make good leaders; agreeableness, assertiveness, decisiveness etc. The average man or woman is inseparable, but when you go to the extreme permutations of these qualities it is almost exclusively men or exclusively women at each end.

Take IQ tests as another example. The average score for a man or woman is pretty much the same, however if you look to the top 1% of scores, 7 out of 8 are men.

If you were to look at empathy and communication in a similar way, I'm sure you'd find that men and women are the same on average, but the top 1% are predominantly female.

That's not to say that the statement 'men make better leaders is true', but it's not inherently sexist either. What makes a good leader is a complex question. Most people will never be leaders, male or female, but the fact is that it's primarily men that have the extreme qualities that have traditionally been desirable in leadership roles..

[–]Exciting-Cat-8862 0 points1 point  (2 children)

women have consistently ranked equal to or higher in many of the leadership traits as well as leadership roles like managerial positions. i agree that what what makes a good leader is complex, which is why op comment is potentially sexist or at the very least anti-women. it pushes the “men are leaders” rhetoric without considering the complexity of leadership and compelling research on women surrounding it to the DETRIMENT of women.

in other words, they take a complex topic and boil it down to the stereotypical “men are rightfully leaders” ignoring any sort of research and completing arguments against that. their lack of complexity in the statement (and lack of empirical evidence) hurts women and pushes a sexist narrative

i would encourage you to look into this further because men do NOT have more of the “extreme qualities” desirable in leaders that you mention.

and tbh, even if they did, it would likely be a very very minimal difference so again to push the “men are rightful leaders” based off that is still wild to me because that difference is small enough to be the standard error in the study

[–]maxhrlw 0 points1 point  (1 child)

potentially sexist

Agree, potentially not inherently as you initially surmised.

men do NOT have more of the “extreme qualities” desirable in leaders that you mention.

You've misunderstood, and actually I would encourage you to look at the research. Men are over represented at the extremes when it comes to distribution in certain qualities.. for example agreeableness.

empirical evidence

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Overlapping-distributions-of-Agreeableness-for-men-and-women-Vertical-axis-indicates_fig10_51594567

While on average there's not much difference between men and women. The MOST disagreeable people are almost exclusively men. Traditionally speaking being disagreeable or assertive has been considered a core tennant of leadership. Now if you look at it solely with that framing, i.e. the best leaders are the most disagreeable, then of course it stands to reason that the best leaders would be men. It doesn't mean all men would be better than all women.

Of course that would be an oversimplification and as such in my opinion isn't strictly true. But as I said isn't automatically anti-woman. There's objectivity which 'gender studies' likes to disengenuously ignore, focusing on averages instead.

it would likely be a very very minimal difference

I would urge you to review the research, before promoting an opinion based on assumed likelihoods.

[–]Exciting-Cat-8862 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

you are providing research but not a framework. sure if the framework holds up the research you cited would too, but you didn’t provide a framework. everything i’ve seen regarding leadership says the opposite about “disagreeableness” and does not fit into the most recent theoretical models. most models almost exclusively agree that agreeableness or a balance of the traits is better for leadership not worse and have developed entire models off of that and other related traits. just because something is “considered” a core trait of leadership doesn’t mean it results in better leadership. your article is absolutely nothing without a model to support it and the only “model” you draw on is your own observations of “well these traits are considered core traits of leadership”. you’re falling into the same position that op is from outdated views and theoretical models and ironically linked a study proving my point. under the “updated” models and understanding, your publication supports what i’m saying because it supports the idea that agreeableness is better for leadership

you also still have no comment on the main takeaway which is that it’s a complex issue and ops statements lack such complexity and nuance which in turn hurt women. whether the research holds to their point or not in this case is more so the cherry on top. by making a complex topic less complex they are hurting women and pushing sexist views

[–]walterwallcarpet 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Let's see women stand with Ukraine.

Ukrainian women could initiate the process. But, of course, they won't. https://thewordofdamocles.substack.com/p/the-war-in-ukraine-a-solution-ignored?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1005488&post_id=158545711&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=h2rw1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

[–]KENNETHCHADLINGTON 6 points7 points  (0 children)

A bunch of Ukrainian women sought asylum in America and started being hoes immediately lol there were a few on several different podcasts acting like whores while their husbands were back home dying for them 🤣🤣

[–]Stock-Scientist6685 10 points11 points  (15 children)

I was stand with Ukraine until I found out that they were forcibly recruiting men, even kidnapping them off the streets, and were trying to make agreements with Poland to deport Ukrainian refugees.

Now I remain neutral in that conflict.

[–]Golden-Grate-242 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Russia is recruiting, by force, as well.

[–]Stock-Scientist6685 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Yes, also Russia is top on male suicide, and has a lot of law that discriminate men like the West.

Also Russia promotes wokeism with their spanish propaganda while do the opossite with their english propaganda.

My comment was not a defense of Russia.

[–]Golden-Grate-242 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Exactly. I'm not sure how anyone can support Putin and Russia in this conflict, or advocate abandoning Ukraine instead of supporting negotiations in which the US goes in as an advocate of Ukraine seeking a settlement that is fair.

[–]Stock-Scientist6685 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well, if they bring about the fall of the European Union, I will celebrate it. I'm spaniard and I think the EU is the cause of many of our problems.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Both sides are awful. Also, as an American, it's not our war

[–]Carbo-Raider 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Nope. It's the whole world's war. Everyone needs to fight this kind of world-domination.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Here you go. Follow the steps and enlist. Put your money where your mouth is

https://www.newsweek.com/heres-how-americans-can-sign-fight-ukraine-against-russians-1683068

[–]Carbo-Raider 2 points3 points  (7 children)

Did you hear that from a trustworthy source? I don't trust ... no, I DIStrust everything Vance says.

I think no one should've been allowed to bail out of Ukraine. the whole would needs to fight this kind of world-domination.

[–]Stock-Scientist6685 0 points1 point  (5 children)

BBC:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz994d6vqe5o:

La SER. They have the same ideology as democrats:

https://cadenaser.com/nacional/2024/04/25/polonia-y-lituania-estan-dispuestas-a-devolver-a-los-ucranianos-en-edad-de-combatir-en-el-ejercito-cadena-ser/

[–]Carbo-Raider 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course war is hell. This sounds like the draft. But what do you expect Ukraine to do? As I said, this is everyone's issue; everyone's fight. If people don't fight, they're either gonna die anyway, or live a bad life under oppression. As a quote in the article says:

"He was unable to mask his contempt for those who are hiding. “How can I say this without swearing? I don’t consider them men. What are they waiting for? If we run out of men, the enemy will come to their homes, rape their women, and kill their children."

WHY ARE WE NOT FOCUSING ON THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM? It is crazy that SOMEONE got us arguing over how Ukraine is responding to being under attack. WE SHOULD BE GANGING UP ON PUTIN AND STOPPING HIM. THAT IS THE ONLY END TO THIS. BUT INSTEAD, AMERICANS ELECTED PUTINS PUPPET.

(YES I AM YELLING)

THOSE PEOPLE ARE THE PROBLEM!!!! THIS IS FUCKING SUPER CLEAR!!!!!

[–]AmputatorBot -1 points0 points  (1 child)

It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of concerns over privacy and the Open Web. Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are especially problematic.

Maybe check out the canonical page instead: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz994d6vqe5o

I'm a bot | Why & About | Summon: u/AmputatorBot

[–]KENNETHCHADLINGTON -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

Anything from the BBC is heavily biased and not worth paying any attention too

[–]Carbo-Raider 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How so? Are they as biased as NBC or FOX? I never thought so.

[–]50pciggy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

His point stands either way, go enlist.

[–]hendrixski 9 points10 points  (5 children)

How do you propose we end Russian expansion?

Allowing Russia to take territory today only emboldens them to try to take more territory tomorrow. We will NEVER have peace as long as they keep picking fights. Sadly, it looks like the only way to get peace is to hit back so hard that they go home and stop attacking everyone else. And the only way to hit back hard is gender neutral conscription. 

[–]Remote_Purpose_4323 1 point2 points  (1 child)

How about you stop NATO expansion?

[–]hendrixski -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Aaaahhhhahahah!

GTFO!

[–]Professional-Art5476 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yeah, seems OP has fallen for the republican propaganda regarding Ukraine and Russia.

[–]Carbo-Raider 2 points3 points  (5 children)

NOOOOO. FULL STOP on trying to politicize this and blame liberals. The reason only leftists are standing with Ukraine is because REPUBLICANS WERE FORCED BY TRUMP to be AGAINST Ukraine... because he's an EVIL-RUSSIA-LOVING-TRAITOR. And there was the time trump called Zelenskyy to bribe/extort him, only giving him weapons if he announces he's investigating the son of Joe Biden, all to win the election.

TRUMP CAUSED THIS WAR. He emboldened PUTIN to try stealing Ukraine. We can't have that. Putin wants to acquire land & power (which will hurt MORE men), and if we give him land, we have rewarded a bully, and he will attack Poland next.

Trump never stopped Putin from 2017-21. That aligns with trump being Putin's Puppet.

A lot of Americans have a naive view of war. You can't avoid war if you want freedom & sovereignty... especially with tyrants who want world domination.

[–]KENNETHCHADLINGTON 4 points5 points  (4 children)

Complains about brain washing while stating a bunch of unprovable nonsense 🤔

[–]Carbo-Raider -3 points-2 points  (3 children)

unprovable also means un-dis-provable. So you can not call it nonsense. Are you another shill for the Axis-of-Evil?

Name TWO things I said that are unprovable. The phone call is ON TAPE.

[–]KENNETHCHADLINGTON 0 points1 point  (2 children)

And I have a recording of scarlet Johansson slurping Mandingo, definitely not deep faked btw. The internet would never lie to me!

[–]Carbo-Raider -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Strange that I got 2 thumbs down when all I did was say you can't call it non-sense. My post could've been stronger.... starting with: The phone call is ON TAPE. Not on the internet. So tell us Kennith what in God's earth are you talking about? It's a historical fact that Russia has always tried to acquire land. And Putin is ON TAPE (but speaking in Russian, so translation isn't perfect). Here's the official translation:

"Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and co-patriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself."

And when did I reference brain washing?

[–]KENNETHCHADLINGTON 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's on the internet as far as you're concerned, unless you have a tape? Nope, so it's on the internet. Make sense please or I'll get bored real quick lol

[–]parahacker 2 points3 points  (6 children)

We need a new reporting category for Russian propaganda. Mods, get on this shit.

Because this "compassion towards man" is thinly veiled anti-Ukraine propoganda that is based on notions wildly misinformed on the realities of Ukraine's military, and only barely within the domain of men's rights at all if you squint hard.

You want real tragedy for human rights? Try Russia sending its conscripts on crutches to die just for scouting out if Ukrainians are paying attention to that part of the line. Fucking animals.

But we never see posts about that, do we? Never see posts calling for a stronger stance against Russian inhumanity towards man. Nah, it's the guys fighting for their lives and freedom we spit on in here. Based on lies and overdramatized descriptions of Ukraine's conscription. Fuck you Russian shitbags posting in here. You deserve all the misery you foist on others, and you know it.

Also, will the following names please fucking do something about Russian trolls:

u/AnnArchist

u/AloysiusC

u/typhonblue

u/goodmod

u/iainmf

u/nicemod

u/genobeam

u/claypigeonmod

u/Mod-ulate

[–]Mod-ulate 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Have you tried reporting them? There is too much content to read and moderate everything. We rely on assistance from subscribers, as does all of reddit.

[–]parahacker 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Ok. Sure. But I'm calling you guys out for a reason. You're not making it easy to help you with this.

For god's sake at least make a reporting category. I've tried - there isn't one that 'fits' this sort of thing... impersonating? "No fake news"? Not always a good fit, this topic being a prime example of why. Add a rule to the sidebar. Add a meta thread with this sort of thing and how to report it. And whatever else you can think of. If we have to be the ones to fight Russian hybrid warfare on this sub, if you can't do it without us, give us more tools to fight with.

[–]Mod-ulate 0 points1 point  (2 children)

So:

Reported as: SPAM (advertisements, subreddit bans, reposts, fakes)

isn't good enough?

Unfortunately, reddit limits the number of rules we can have, and we have hit that limit. So we can't add a new one.

I changed the "Low value, low effort" one to now say "Fake/falsified, low value, or low effort" which might make it more clear?

[–]parahacker 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Closer. It's still not clear that's the correct category for stuff like this. SPAM is typically associated with sales advertisements; I've used the category before to report stuff like this, but with much doubt.

Low value/effort is also kind of iffy. Even 'false' low-value low effort. It has too much overlap with rants that are purely men's rights stuff and might even have value being here. You'd get more reports on stuff you might want to keep or have no other issues with.

I'll grant you the distinction can be hard to make sometimes. I'm leaning towards adding words like 'disinformation' and 'hybrid warfare attempts.'

Going by the NATO definition there, this is not hyperbole or over-exaggerating the issue. It is literally a problem of paid state actors using this forum to confuse, demotivate and distract 'the enemy' of public opinion in English-speaking spaces.

So even if it feels a bit extreme, I'd go with that one. Put that in the sidebar somewhere. I'll use it, if I see similar stuff, and I have a feeling it'll get you a lot less false positives (or worse, people not even reporting because they think they can't fit it) than what you currently have.

[–]Mod-ulate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We will talk and see what we can come up with. But we have other restrictions than are what are obvious.

[–]hendrixski 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed. This post should be flagged and banned.

[–]Golden-Grate-242 -1 points0 points  (2 children)

I'm not sure what Ukraine has anything, at all, to do with mens rights. Since you're talking about it: what kind of person would support Russia's decision to attack a country and steal parts of it's territory???

[–]hendrixski 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly. 

If one is for men's rights then they are against gender discrimination in military conscription.  In which case they are against the policies of both Russia and Ukraine. But the war itself and NATO's role in it are totally NOT topics for this sub.

[–]KENNETHCHADLINGTON 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The world we live in is defined based on centuries of people conquering each other, doesn't seem very likely or logical that this pattern would suddenly stop 🤣🤣