And perhaps more accurately, MRAs don’t have a problem with the ideals of feminism, that is equality of the sexes, but believe that in practice, feminists have focused too much on women’s rights and not enough on men’s rights, or true equality.

Put that way, there realy is no contradiction or confusion. And this is a type of MRA I can support.

Mr. Stevens, as always your ideas are dangerous in the hands of the selfish and ignorant.

As are any ideas which take an actual stand. Neutral or do-nothing ideas are “safe.”

However, consider this: the manipulative few are vastly outnumbered by the sentimental many. It’s easier to produce saps for parasites than vicious manipulators.

I always fear that in the battle against “victimhood”, eventually what some will gain is disdain for victims entirely.

“Some” may, but it’s unlikely that this will be widespread. An honest victim (old lady pushed over by a thug) is rarely overlooked, at least around here. What we could use are fewer parasites, since they always disguise themselves as victims.

Why is it that this blog assumes that MRAs have a problem with feminism in the first place?

MRAs say that they have a problem with feminism.

MRAs also tend to preach a doctrine that looks a lot like feminism.

They are confused, like neoconservatives.

Actually, MRAs and feminists should be, and in the best cases are, both allied against Traditionalists.

MRAs and feminists both believe in rights. MRAs emphasize men’s rights, while feminists emphasize women’s rights, but the two are not incompatible.

Tranditionalists don’t believe in rights for anyone. They believe in prescribed roles, paths that we are born for and directed towards based on which sperm one out in getting to our mother’s egg. They are the enemy of both MRAs (of type that can legitimately bear the name, not just so-called “fMRAs”) and feminists.

http://betcheslovethis.com/?q=betch-list

Victimhood has been subverted to become this power position EssEm. It is not so inherently. Never harden your heart, if you are just you will never need to.

All I’m saying is there is no mention of discrimination – in total – in the constitution, that’s all.

What’s the definition then? I’m not too clear on it. I’m guessing the transition occurs before the current law makes the cutoff from legal to illegal in terms of abortion?

Actually, I don’t know the law regarding abortion. I think it is a states rights issue, and varies from state to state. But my point was not really about the legality of it. I was just observing that I never understood why a woman only began to love her child after it passed a certain checkpoint. Earlier you mentioned that child-preservation was the strongest drive of the human species, and this to me implies something that is instinctual as opposed to rational. So a woman knows rationally that she has an embryo growing inside her, but she feels nothing instinctually towards it, and thus she can abort it. In other words, her rationality overrides her instincts, because she feels nothing for her embryo. Later, when the embryo becomes a fetus, she feels something for it, some kind of bond. Anyway, that always struck me as odd. I assumed that one’s faculty of reason trumps everything, such as one’s instincts.

I’ve considered it, and I figure it’s a member of the class of problems stemming from the paradox of vagueness, or “sorites”, the classic example of which is the question of how many grains of sand constitute a “heap” of sand. Other examples include the proper age to designate the transition to adulthood for purposes of voting, conscription, sexual consent, etc.

Ok, so what you are saying then is, child-preservation is ultimately a rational choice, and not an instinct. I think that’s what you’re saying.

I don’t know. I think it’s dangerous to speculate about instinct in general when it comes to human beings, as opposed to culturally learned behaviors.

I think it’s worthwhile. I never considered it dangerous.

Who said there was? Certainly not I. The effect is the same, no? In most circumstances (except for a few states at a few times), no women could vote in the US until 1920.

“I’m not sure about that. He sounds like he wants individual states to decide for themselves how they want to be governed. I agree that he probably thinks state governments should not discriminate, however. But I doubt he wants the federal government to intervene.”

You’re right; I forgot about the whole states’ rights thing.

“Regarding abortion, no matter whom I’ve talked to about this, be they man or woman, there is a distinction made between an embryo and a fetus. There is no affection or ‘maternal instinct’ accorded to the embryo, and so the decision to abort or not abort is an easy choice. However, once the embryo makes the transition to fetus, affection or ‘maternal instinct’ commences, and the decision to abort or not abort is problematic.”

What’s the definition then? I’m not too clear on it. I’m guessing the transition occurs before the current law makes the cutoff from legal to illegal in terms of abortion?

“Have you ever considered how bizarre that is? I’ve always wondered why the embryo has to pass a certain checkpoint in order to attain rights.”

I’ve considered it, and I figure it’s a member of the class of problems stemming from the paradox of vagueness, or “sorites”, the classic example of which is the question of how many grains of sand constitute a “heap” of sand. Other examples include the proper age to designate the transition to adulthood for purposes of voting, conscription, sexual consent, etc.

“What you’re saying is a little different, though. Some sort of instinct that is human does not actually ‘kick in’ during the embryonic stage, but it does in most cases during the fetal stage and after. So this innate hard wiring you alluded to earlier, which is the most competitive struggle there is for a human – what you call ‘child-preservation’ – is muted during the embryonic stage, but is mysteriously activated during the fetal stage and after. I’ve never been able to understand that.”

I don’t know. I think it’s dangerous to speculate about instinct in general when it comes to human beings, as opposed to culturally learned behaviors.