From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon antifeminism test2.svg

This Men's rights movement related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Archives for this talk page: , (new)

Oh look, RWiki has finally been recognized![edit]

On Rooshie's forum anyway: Don't that make you all warm and fuzzy inside? Chair tater (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

These people ... they do not coherent thought - David Gerard (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The manosphere has fufilled an important social function that feminism has neglected[edit]

In the old days, there were some protections for men's rights that don't exist today. Men would get married and then have an arrangement where they were basically trading money for sex in a lifelong relationship. The man could be prosecuted if he failed to support his wife, and he could rape his wife if she refused to have sex. Divorce, to the extent it was available at all, required the consent of both parties.

All of these legal obligations (the money part, the sex part, and the permanency of marriage) have been abolished. So men have little recourse if a woman decides to rip them off. There is still usually an agreement being made in marriage; both men and women usually do promise all sorts of stuff, verbally and through Facebook chat, etc. even if little of it makes it into a binding contract. There are exchanges of valuable consideration; for example, a man may donate his sperm to a woman in exchange for her promise to stay with him to raise the child to adulthood together. Although people make a big deal about how "it takes more than impregnating a woman to make you a father" the reality is that a lot of guys would not impregnate a woman without her agreement to let him play a role in the child's life, preferably as part of a two-parent team living in one household (which significantly saves on costs, and allows for division of labor) and nurturing the child.

The situation now is that women can come and go as they please, regardless of what they promised. Much attention has been paid by feminists to "red flags" that can alert women that they need to get the hell out of a relationship before the guy gets severely abusive. The manosphere has made the very important contribution of providing guys with information on "red flags" they need to watch out for too, that can alert them to a likelihood that a woman will rip them off or mistreat them severely. For example, experience has shown that a girl with short hair who, on the first date, tells you about her many health problems and her history of being raped, is likely to cause problems in a relationship.

Guys need to find some way to protect themselves and their kids from women flaking out, and one way is to gain some insights and rules of thumb for figuring out which women it would be best to not marry and have kids with in the first place. Identifying cultures around the world that produce more reliable and trustworthy women is also a very helpful service. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 12:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

If you think marriage has the premise of 'money for sex', then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of human relationships. This is probably the most repulsive thing you've ever written here. Queexchthonic murmurings 12:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
This. If you think sex is the only benefit of marriage for a man, and money the only benefit for women, then maybe the problem is you. You're going to have a very lonely life, i think.Petey Plane (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Not even close. Check out the essay AgingHippie deleted. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Sour grapes much? The people that complain the most violently about how marriage is now abusive men often are the ones least likely to ever have been "abused" in the first place.StickySock (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
How do you figure? I don't know anyone like that. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
What a load of regressive, anger-fueled bullshit this is. What kind of worldview do you have that believes that a man "could rape his wife if she refused to have sex" is a good thing? This has to be the most repulsive thing I've ever seen posted on this wiki. Your viewpoints have no place here, except, perhaps, as an example of the most disgusting neoreactionary men's right's activist shite. If this is what the so-called "manosphere" is all about, it deserves to be exposed as the abhorrent aberration it is. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Men would get married and then have an arrangement where they were basically trading money for sex in a lifelong relationship.- Men's Rights EXTREMIST
No, for the majority of people, this was NOT the case. I'm sorry, that's just full of shit.
The man could be prosecuted if he failed to support his wife- Men's Rights EXTREMIST
I don't know what jurisdiction you're referring to, but that's false here in the Deep South. You couldn't be prosecuted for "non-support". Never happened.
and he could rape his wife if she refused to have sex- Men's Rights EXTREMIST
Also not necessarily true. While cases of domestic abuse were prosecuted less frequently, it did happen. Vigilante justice against such was more common pre-1960 as well.
Divorce, to the extent it was available at all, required the consent of both parties. - Men's Rights EXTREMIST
No, it didn't. Let's take my state of GA, for instance. Until 1970, the divorce procedure was to file in local court, have a jury trial agree that you should be divorced, then REPEAT the jury trial with a different jury six months later. Assuming both juries agreed you should be divorced, you would then need to have a special act of divorce passed by the GA legislature and signed by the Governor. Only then would you be divorced.
Consent of both parties was NOT required. (As a matter of fact, consent of EITHER party was not required. Theoretically, a third party could initiate and pursue the process themselves. Never did happen.)
Since your premises are bullshit, I'm not going to devote myself to deconstrucing the rest of the bullshit you spew. It's simply untrue and bears no resemblence to marriage and relationships in the real world. You want protection for yourself? Get a prenup. End of list.
I recommend you hang out with Aneris. You can both crank on about the evil wimmins. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

"Until the late 1970s, most states did not consider spousal rape a crime."

There were statutes saying a husband could be thrown in prison for refusing to support his wife. What, you think I'm just gonna make shit up?

A divorce from bed and board does require consent of both parties.

Prenups don't protect your heart from getting broken, and they don't protect your kids from losing the opportunity to be raised by both their parents together (except to the extent they deter a breakup by making it less lucrative for someone to leave), so they're of limited usefulness.

I did oversimplify, though; marriage is actually resources, protection, and attention in exchange for sex. It's sexual economics. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

And did you consider the thought, that spouses shag each-other, cause they are emotionally and sexually attracted to each-other, not as an exchange for benefits?? Why do you make every married person into a hooker?!--Kugelschreiber (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
It's a fine line. Anyway, unless marriage is defined as a union in which sex is part of the deal, it's harder to excuse/justify marital rape, because you can't claim your spouse is defrauding you by refusing to put out. Back in the 1970s, marriage was much kinkier because it was like a BDSM slave contract except without any safeword. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

A solution to the problem[edit]

Grow face-fur - [1] and [2] among many others.

And #women cannot compete.# (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


Why are these guys almost exclusively straight? Women this, women that, I doubt that gays think about women so much176.111.212.130 (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


This article is becoming more and more relevant by the day. I would weakly support a silver. If two others support, I'll be the third... Corncob (pester) 20:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)