Do you support feminism, the Men's Rights Movement, both, or neither?

[Bobby Martnen]

They are. The founder of the Men's Right's movement used to be a male feminist activist before.

Who?

[Rethel]

Aryan king Ahasverus made the normality clear:

And the decree of the king that he will make must be heard in all his realm (for it is vast), and all the wives themselves will give honor to their owners, the great as well as the small.” And the thing was pleasing in the eyes of the king and the princes, and the king proceeded to do according to the word of Me·muʹcan. So he sent written documents to all the king’s jurisdictional districts, to each jurisdictional district in its own style of writing and to each people in its own tongue, for every husband to be continually acting as prince in his own house and speaking in the tongue of his own people.

Nothing more to add.
Anything beneath it, is not worthy of consideration.

[Vojnik]

People who support neither - I guess you want to live in more authoritarian and less free societies?

I don't support it because its divisive. Its dirty identity politics. But they can do what they want in this free open society. Dosn't mean they are immune to criticism and scrutiny.

[Peterski]

I don't support it because its divisive.

I support both and it means that I believe that they have many common goals and don't have to fight.

It doesn't have to be divisive. Only radicals are making it divisive. I'm pro-human rights and freedoms.

[Peterski]

Who?

Paul Elam. He used to be a feminist.

[Rethel]

I support both and it means that I believe that they have many common goals and don't have to fight.

It doesn't have to be divisive. Only radicals are making it divisive. I'm pro-human rights and freedoms.

So you support eternal war between men and women, and further degeneration of society.

[Bobby Martnen]

Women should be able to vote, but I think husbands should be the head of the household.

[Peterski]

So you support eternal war between men and women

Of course not.

Protecting or increasing women's rights doesn't have to violate men's rights, and vice versa.

[Óttar]

Both suffer from tunnel vision and are absolutely incapable of acknowledging or empathizing with the other side. I don't like intellectually dishonest feminism which seems to be rife in this contemporary 'wave' i.e. "The wage gap" and the fact that many women don't take time to reflect on how disheartening it can be for men to be stereotyped as potential rapists and killers for having committed no crime other than having bollocks between their legs.

The modern Men's Rights Movement spends too much time wallowing in negativity, and in condemning homosexuals and those men who have a non-traditionally masculine gender presentation.

[Rethel]

Women should be able to vote, but I think husbands should be the head of the household.

And when a woman has a different vote than a husband, there is a conflict.
More than that, women usually have no clue about politics whatsoever. If you
want vote rights (idk for what, but if you insist), then the much sensable is
spanish solution, that the head of the house has so much votes, as he has
members of his household. Then the peace of family would be secure.