Why are we continuing to use biased language?

  • folkrav
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I’m sorry, but I think it’s the other way around. As I mentioned in my previous comments, “men’s liberation” and “men’s rights” just both happen to be names referring to specific movements that both advocate for men’s interests, but largely disagree on the causes.

    If you still genuinely think I’m somehow ashamed of advocating for men just cause I don’t agree with the ideas of the MRM in particular, this idea that feminism as a whole is somehow either obsoleted by the existence its extremist elements, rather than just being a parallel fight, then… what are we arguing over, exactly?

    • nac82@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      I feel like I wrote what I intended to say very specifically and then clarified when there was confusion about our disagreement.

      Feel free to address my point about how the phrase “men’s rights” became such a toxic branded phrase due to an ideology that hated men having any form of organized action addressing the harms men face.

      It was a label created outside pointed inwards. By definition, this is a “men’s rights movement” space, and an outside force is equally capable of branding it under the same title for the exact same reasons.

      The disagreement here was your unity with said toxic viewpoints.

      I feel like all of this has now been written out 3 times, so I will wait for you to respond to it before engaging further.

      • spaduf@slrpnk.netM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        “Men’s rights” has literally always had a toxic connotation.

        The term “men’s rights” was used at least as early as February 1856 when it appeared in Putnam’s Magazine. The author was responding to the issue of women’s rights, calling it a “new movement for social reform, and even for political revolution”, which the author proposed to counter with men’s rights.[12] Ernest Belfort Bax wrote The Legal Subjection of Men in 1896, deriding the women’s rights movement as a farcical effort by women—the “privileged sex”—to prove they were “oppressed.”