"Why the Men's Rights Movement Is Garbage"

Maybe the tenets of the MRM ought to be taught in our primary schools.

The way I see it those are our choices to run our families and society.

As far as I know patriarchal societies have always been successful, where as matriarchal societies have not (i.e. ghettos).

One could ask, well how about an "equal" society or family? Intact families consist of two parents who rule over the children . Like anything else, it is difficult to have two equal leaders, because if hard choices must be made, there can be only one final decision maker. Not many careers are compatible to be equal priorities within a marriage, and even more difficult if one spouse has to take time off for pregnancy and childbirth. And besides men and women are not equal (more on that later). The difficulty with having two equal leaders is also why we only have one president and not co-presidents.

Free choice (let the participants choose wether they want a matriarchal or patriarchal family and society): IMO, this is what we have now. there is nothing stopping men or women from taking on as much leadership in their families and society as they are capable of (for family, they must find an agreeable mate). However, men and women are highly influence by their own biology, and because of biology, more women will end up being stay at home parents (at least temporary) compared to men. What type of leadership we have in families is then reflected into society. If women make up the majority of stay at home parents - they cannot achieve equal representation in powerful roles outside of the family. It is mathematically impossible. I see feminist complain all the time that females do not make up 50% of CEO's or politicians. Well look at how many females are pregnant, staying home with kids, or planning on future pregnancies- and that should explain it.

A patriarchal society is not bad. It leads to traditional gender roles (or maybe traditional gender roles lead to patriarchy -I'm not sure which comes first) Anyway, it is where things will naturally fall, as it is the most efficient. It takes more work on the part of females to go outside traditional roles - and then they often need help (birth control, abortion, lowering standards, etc). But if women can achieve power without lowering standards or destroying families, they should have the freedom to do so. I don't think anyone wants to stop them. However, feminist are lying when they say "women can have it all" in terms of family and career.

The bottom line is this: Until women stop having babies and/or men start getting pregnant we will never have women in equal numbers in powerful positions, so we will always have more men in charge (patriarchy). It's just life. Feminist are blaming social construct, when it is really just biology.

(PS- this is more of a response to the comments about the article as many are complaining/blaming patriarchy and showing the low number of women in powerful positions as proof of discrimination)

Quotes from the article:

"...I also believe that we're not born with an even playing field. Women still face disenfranchisement, discrimination and a lack of basic freedoms and rights, and although feminism has done a lot of great work over the last century or so, we still haven't undone several millennia's worth of social programming and oppression"......"Because, to use a stupid analogy here, if one person starts out with no apples and another person starts out with five apples and then you give them both three apples each in the name of fairness, one person still has five more apples."

This is what I have a problem with. I have a problem when feminists (and many MRAs) can see that women are not equally represented in certain areas, but they blame it on social conditioning when it is really just biology. What she is suggesting in the quote above is that women need "affirmative action" because women are so discriminated against they cannot achieve the power positions they "deserve". Of course this is BS. If all opportunities to achieve power in society are equal (and I believe they are) you will NEVER get women in equal numbers of powerful positions (or dangerous positions) because nature has given women the powerful (and dangerous) position in reproduction.

Let me put it like this. Nature developed two separate genders. These two genders need to come together for healthy offspring (survival of the species). The attraction for one another has to be equal, or we would have one gender inhibiting the birth off the other gender (there would be no incentive to keep a 50/50 ratio) . If you believe women are equal to men AND know women can make babies, that would make women superior to men as far as how valuable they are to the species (because making babies would give women an added feature).

I know many people hate to accept their biological programming or biological destination, but males have more production value and women have more reproduction value. Together this forms the "yin and yang" of the genders' attractiveness to one another. If a woman chooses to not use her reproduction value, she still will be short on production value as it is just how nature designed her. This is evident in her lesser body strength compared to a man's and I will venture into subjective territory and even mention her lesser cognitive ability (or is "mental ability" the better term?). Women can contribute in many ways to society, but every task aside from reproduction, needed to sustain society and the species can be done as good OR better by men. If you do not consider reproduction, women need men more than men need women.

Reproduction is the great equalizing factor for women. If we didn't make babies, the species would be fine without us :(