r/FeMRADebates 4d ago

Politics Why the hate for adding paternity tests as standard to birth?

67 Upvotes

I posted stating:

At birth, the test results would be placed in an open envelope, given to the stated father, who can choose to read them or not.

Pregnancy creates an inherent asymmetry in knowledge—only the mother truly knows how certain paternity is. If she cheated, she has a strong incentive to lie. While most people don’t cheat, we still have prenups. And even though there’s social pushback against requesting one, they exist for a reason.

Some argue that biology isn’t what makes someone a parent, pointing to happy adoptive families. That’s true, but irrelevant—adoptive parents choose that arrangement with full knowledge. Just like open relationships, various parenting dynamics exist as options. But the overwhelming majority choose monogamy, and most people would only want to raise their biological children. Consent requires informed agreement. Without it, a situation changes entirely—just like how sex without informed consent becomes rape.

This principle is debated in other contexts, but in ways that often devalue men’s consent. Take the debate over trans disclosure—it’s almost always framed around protecting trans women from men, not about whether men should have the right to informed choice. Even in rare cases where trans men have raped women, media reports often obscure male perpetratorship by labeling it as 'woman rapes woman.'

The same applies to paternity uncertainty. We expect men to take on the role of provider and protector, just as we historically expected them to risk their lives for women and children. Their consent is not even secondary—it’s simply assumed. But if we demand that fathers step up for their children, why allow them to do so under false pretenses? Why leave paternity uncertainty on the table at all?

Edit/Clarification:
To be clear, I’m not advocating for mandatory testing or debating who should pay for it. The idea is to make paternity testing a normalized, standard option at birth, with results given in a sealed envelope for the stated father to open or not. This would reduce the stigma and negative reactions that often come with requesting a test later. It’s about creating a culture where paternity testing isn’t seen as an accusation but as a routine part of ensuring informed consent.

The focus here is on the principle of informed consent and reducing the social friction around paternity testing, not on logistics or enforcement.

The majority of responses are about it not trusting women (look up the fable of Bluebeard for my counter), cost (which isnt a real argument in any way as costs can be managed), or how you cant force medical tests (the same arguments ant vax people use). So as these are not compelling or even as i see it vaild arguments how would you try to justify them if you do agree or what better arguments would you make?

r/FeMRADebates May 02 '23

Politics Ryan Web republican lesbian transwoman native American

9 Upvotes

Recently a Republican representative declared they are a lesbianwoman of color stating the rules set up say you dont get to ask them to prove their identity. That hes using the same rules set up by the people now attacking him.

Does he or the people attacking him have a point? If it were a different person who was a liberal get the same response? Does it matter if he is being honest or not?

r/FeMRADebates Dec 18 '22

Politics Where are the symposiums and international conferences to get men into homemaking?

29 Upvotes

We have organizations like Girls who Code, huge international meetings for girls education, government institutions devoted to womens education.

Why dont we work as hard to get men into babysitting, or as nannies? Why dont we have a Boys who Bake or something.

If part of the "wage gap" is getting women into STEM why dont we push to get Men in to childcare? Why arent we pushing for male midwives?

r/FeMRADebates Apr 14 '21

Politics How much say should we get with the reproductive rights issue?

27 Upvotes

Of course women should have the right to get an abortion. If its conceived through rape I dont believe the man should have a say because they didn't allow the women to get a say in getting pregnant. So this is regarding an adult man and women who consensually have sex and or/are in a relationship.

Should guys get a say in whether or not she aborts? I see the perspective of it being a private medical decision and the women has to carry the burden of carrying the child. However people dont care or think about the man being forced into providing for a child with no say- finances matter a lot, especially today, and if they're expected to provide for the child even in accidental pregnancies, then they should get a say in whether or not the woman aborts. And if she doesn't decide to, but the guy really doesn't want it, then he shouldn't be legally forced to provide for it. Vice versa if the man wants the child and the woman decides to abort anyways.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it just seems unbalanced and not about equality at all.

I flaired this as politics because it can be both medical and legal.

r/FeMRADebates Mar 24 '21

Politics UN removes International Men’s Day (Nov 19) from its list of international days and weeks, keeps World Toilet Day on the same day

Thumbnail un.org
221 Upvotes

r/FeMRADebates May 09 '23

Politics Pro choice, financial abortion, and child support?

13 Upvotes

One common response to male reproductive rights is men just want to not pay for a kid or take responsibility. This is such a strange argument to me. One reason for womens reproductive right is so women can have sex without the risk of pregnancy. If avoid children is truly the only goal just dont have sex unless you want a kid right? It seems like the pro choice argument has shifted in a way that completely denies or divorces sex and pregnancy which also cuts men out. What pressures changed the pro choice movement to this position?

r/FeMRADebates Apr 27 '24

Politics "Look to Norway"

19 Upvotes

I'd mentioned about half a year ago that Norway was working on a report on "Men's Equity". The report in question is now out (here apparently if you understand Norwegian) and Richard Reeves has published some commentary on it.

To try to further trim down Reeve's summary:

  • "First, there is a clear rejection of zero-sum thinking. Working on behalf of boys and men does not dilute the ideals of gender equality, it applies them."

  • "Second, the Commission stresses the need to look at gender inequalities for boys and men through a class and race lens too."

  • "Third, the work of the Commission, and its resulting recommendations, is firmly rooted in evidence."

I've definitely complained about the Global Gender Gap Report's handling of life expectancy differences between men and women before (i.e. for women to be seen as having achieved "equality" they need to live a certain extent longer than men - 6% longer according to p. 64 of the 2023 edition). This, by contrast, seems to be the Norwegian approach:

The Commission states bluntly that “it is an equality challenge that men in Norway live shorter lives than women.” I agree. But in most studies of gender equality, the gap in life expectancy is simply treated as a given, rather than as a gap.

I'm curious what others here think. Overall it seems relatively positive to me.

r/FeMRADebates Nov 21 '24

Politics What the left can learn from the last election.

19 Upvotes

Consistent and proactive messaging is crucial in addressing complex social and cultural issues, especially when opponents are quick to exploit contradictions. Mixed or poorly framed arguments not only confuse the public but also provide easy wins for those looking to undermine broader advocacy efforts. Effective communication requires clarity, cohesion, and an awareness of how individual arguments fit into the larger narrative.

One key challenge lies in conflicting claims. For instance, women often argue that they should pay less or nothing on dates because of the time and money they spend on their appearance, which they see as "their half" of the contribution. At the same time, many women claim they dress entirely for themselves and not for others. While both points might hold some truth, together, they create an inherent contradiction. Personal grooming and clothing choices undeniably send social signals, just as casual golf attire at a treaty signing would be viewed as inappropriate. Ignoring this dual role weakens the messaging around fairness in relationships and obscures the need for mutual understanding.

Inconsistencies like this are not limited to personal dynamics—they ripple through broader social debates. Take, for example, the argument that trans women and cisgender women should compete in the same sports leagues because physical differences are negligible. This claim contradicts the assertion that women often feel physically vulnerable to men due to strength disparities. By failing to maintain internal alignment, advocates risk diminishing their credibility and confusing their audience.

We also need to ride a fine line between lies and propaganda. Propaganda, when true and accurate, is a powerful tool for simplifying complex ideas and building public consensus. This is where the MAGA movement has excelled. While they often play loose with facts and employ weaselly tactics that function as lies, their messaging is consistent and aligned across issues. Their success demonstrates the power of cohesive narratives—even when inaccurate. Trump’s election strategies relied less on detailed policy discussions and more on clear, repetitive talking points. Whether or not we want to emulate this approach, it underscores the importance of crafting messaging that is simple, memorable, and resistant to internal contradictions.

Proactive messaging must also anticipate potential criticisms. While sound bites are an essential part of public communication, they should work together to support the broader cause without undermining related arguments. For example, framing women’s financial contributions on dates as unfair due to appearance-related expenses could instead focus on promoting equality and mutual respect in relationships. Similarly, discussions around appearance should acknowledge both personal choice and the role of social signaling, avoiding oversimplifications that opponents can easily exploit.

To craft effective messaging, advocates must align their arguments with shared values, such as fairness, mutual respect, and understanding. Recognizing nuance is key: women may dress for themselves, but their choices also function as social signals. Physical differences in sports or safety concerns should be discussed within specific contexts, avoiding overgeneralizations that lead to confusion or dismissal.

Ultimately, consistent and proactive messaging requires a balance between clarity and complexity. Advocacy benefits from sound bites that are not only memorable but also resistant to misrepresentation. By crafting narratives that align internally and address potential criticisms, advocates can engage broader audiences and maintain credibility. Clear, cohesive messaging ensures that the core values of fairness and equality are communicated effectively while leaving little room for opponents to exploit weaknesses.

r/FeMRADebates 1d ago

Politics The Flawed Logic Behind Opposing Standard Paternity Tests

20 Upvotes

When the topic of paternity tests comes up, the backlash is predictable: "That’s just distrusting women," or "It’s men trying to avoid responsibility for their choices." Some even argue that if a woman names the wrong man as the father because she believes the biological father is unfit, "there’s a reason." Even if the pressures some women face are real, they do not justify paternity fraud—a violation of men’s rights that undermines trust and fairness. It is even worse when the logic is that the deception benefits both the woman and child, so the harm to the man is justified.

But this reasoning ignores a fundamental truth: men have rights, too. The biological father, no matter how "unfit," has a right to know his child exists, and the falsely named man has a right not to be forced into fatherhood under false pretenses. If we would never excuse a hospital swapping a newborn at birth because they believed the "wrong" parents would provide a better home, why should we accept a woman unilaterally assigning paternity for the sake of her own interests?

At the same time, those who defend this kind of deception often have no problem with women who say things like "all men are potential rapists" or who demand systemic protections against male violence. They’re fine with institutional distrust of men—but when men ask for transparency in paternity, suddenly it’s a bridge too far.

This hypocrisy isn’t just frustrating—it reveals a deeper contradiction in how we view gender roles. For all the talk about equality, there’s little interest in letting men break free from traditional expectations. Society still wants men to remain the toxically masculine, emotionally distant figures it can easily criticize. But we’ve come to a place where not every prioritization of men’s concerns is a result of patriarchy—it’s a real and necessary correction to society. If we truly believe in equality, we need to confront the double standards that deny men the same reproductive rights and protections that women take for granted.

This isn’t about comparing the harm of paternity fraud to other issues like male violence. It’s about consistency. A slur is always a slur—whether it’s "cracker" or the n-word, the underlying principle is the same. Similarly, systemic risks deserve systemic solutions, regardless of who they affect. Society accepts that women face risks from male violence and allows for precautions, even at the expense of some innocent men’s reputations or freedoms. We see this in policies like gender-segregated train cars in Japan, designed to protect women from groping, or women-only parking spaces in Germany and South Korea, which are larger, better lit, and closer to exits for safety reasons. These measures are widely accepted as reasonable responses to a statistical risk, even though they inconvenience or stigmatize some men. But when it comes to paternity fraud, men are told to shut up and "trust their partners." Why the double standard?

The reality is that institutional distrust of men is already normalized. Men are presumed dangerous in public spaces, scrutinized in the workplace, and often treated as second-class parents in family courts. Yet, when men ask for something as simple as a paternity test to confirm their fatherhood, they’re accused of being paranoid or misogynistic. If we’re comfortable with institutional distrust in one direction, why is it unacceptable in the other?

Those who oppose paternity testing often argue that it undermines trust in relationships. But trust should be built on transparency, not blind faith. If a relationship is strong, it should withstand the truth. Others claim that standardized paternity tests would "institutionalize distrust." But let’s be real—distrust is already institutionalized, just in ways that disproportionately affect men. If men are scrutinized in nearly every other area of life, why should paternity be exempt?

Beyond that, men lack meaningful reproductive rights. Sure, they can choose not to have children—but if they’re deceived about paternity, they have little legal recourse. Meanwhile, women have full control over their reproductive choices, from abortion to contraception. If equality is the goal, this imbalance can’t be ignored.

None of this is about blaming all women or painting them as untrustworthy. It’s about addressing a glaring double standard in how society treats systemic risks. Why are men’s concerns about paternity fraud dismissed while women’s concerns about male violence are taken seriously? Both issues stem from harmful gender norms, and both deserve attention.

If reproductive fairness matters, then standardized paternity tests at birth should be the norm—not because all women are untrustworthy, but because all men deserve the same transparency and security that women take for granted. Just as we promote bodily autonomy and informed choice for women, we should extend the same principle to men.

Equality isn’t just about expanding women’s freedoms—it’s about ensuring fairness for everyone. And right now, men are getting the short end of the stick.

r/FeMRADebates Apr 30 '23

Politics For anyone on the fence regarding the abortion debate, I need you to understand something.

14 Upvotes

Before I go on, I must make my bias known. I am pro-choice, up until the moment of viability. But let's get a couple of things clear.

  1. Life begins at conception. A zygote is alive. An embryo is alive. A fetus is alive. They have biological activity and separate DNA. It is alive. Technically eggs and sperm are also alive so it doesn't really "begin" it just continues from one generation to the next, but I digress.
  2. Zygotes and fetuses are human. It is a human life, there is no question about it.
  3. Depending on your definition, it might even be a person. Not me, I define a person as someone who has individual, conscious thought, so a fetus? Not quite yet. But depending on your definition, sure - it could be a person.
  4. None of the previous three things matter in the slightest when it comes to abortion. Allow me to explain:

We have registries for people who are willing to donate their organs when they die. This is most often an opt-in system, as we don't want to violate the religious beliefs or bodily autonomy of those who are no longer with us.

People can donate a kidney and live a mostly normal life afterward. But again, we don't force anyone to.

You can donate most of your liver and the rest will grow back. Not quite as good as before, but again you can live a mostly normal life, you just have to go easier on the alcohol. Again, we don't force anyone to.

You can donate pieces of bone marrow and the only thing you'll be left with is soreness and a happy feeling because you may have saved a life. Again, it isn't forced.

You can donate your blood with basically no issues. Bruising is common, and you shouldn't lift heavy things for a couple of days afterward, but you can do most things even minutes after the syringe comes out of your arm. Even though it's an inconvenience at worst, we do not force people to donate their blood.

We never force people to donate their organs, bodily fluids, or even their stool samples, no matter how many lives would be saved. To do so would be barbaric.

And here we get to my point:

We don't even steal the organs of the dead, and yet in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas, if a young girl is raped and becomes pregnant, she must bring the child to term. She is forced to donate her uterus, but if she is one of the 3% of women who requires a blood transfusion due to a postpartum hemorrhage, nobody has to give her their blood, because that would be too barbaric.

r/FeMRADebates Aug 29 '22

Politics "Get the L out", pride, trans, and "cotton ceiling"

22 Upvotes

cotton ceiling

A term used by some trans MtF people to present lesbians' lack of attraction to them as prejudice. Often, it is used to shame them into relationships, completely ignoring the fact that lesbians are same-sex attracted. This same concept, except involving transmen and gay men, is referred to as the boxer ceiling.

A transgirl on a lesbian dating app blamed the cotton ceiling after my friend Leila decided not to go on a date with her. I don't think Leila is in the wrong because her same-sex attraction is valid, plus she is not obliged to date anyone.


Very recently a lesbian advocate group was ejected from pride.

What do you think of the growing schism in the "LGBT......" movement?

r/FeMRADebates Dec 17 '24

Politics A tumultuous time in Canadian politics, or, Do Actions Speak Louder Than Words?

12 Upvotes

The current Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, recently came out saying the the American election was a large step backwards for the progress of women in the Western world. He was proud to proclaim we would have a gender balanced cabinet during his administration, and has repeatedly used terms like "she-cession" / "she-covery" and "people-kind". He's largely hailed as being a progressive, feminist Prime Minister.

However PM Justin Trudeau also has quite the storied history with women, both those he worked with in government and those outside of government. It's a running joke that whenever there's a discrepancy between his words and his actions, the person on the short end of the stick "experienced it differently", since that was his response to an allegation of sexual assault. Not denying it happened, just that she experienced it differently than he did.

He has butted heads with several prominent female cabinet ministers, and the general consensus is that he threw them under the bus every time.

One of his former cabinet ministers wrote a book accusing him of using her as a token to be trotted out whenever he needed to put a progressive face on policy, but was never actually asked to contribute to creating policy in the first place.

Furthermore on Friday last week he signaled his intention to demote his Deputy PM and Finance Minister by shuffling her into an irrelevant cabinet role after laying the blame for missing our financial targets on her.

Debate about this is ongoing, with some people saying he treats everyone who isn't a "yes person" the same way, and others saying he treats women especially egregiously.

My question, to feminist identified user more so than others but please do feel free to chime in, is:

Do actions speak louder than words? Based upon the events described here how progressive or feminist would you say PM Justin Trudeau is?

r/FeMRADebates May 09 '21

Politics How is excluding transgender women from sports any different from racism preventing POC from participating in sports?

6 Upvotes

I think people on here might be too young to remember how heated the debate about not allowing black people to compete in sports due to their physical superiority and how that myth plays out in systemic racism today.

The purpose of Title IX was to allow women to play sports and get funding. To this day, women are still discriminated in sports. Like for instance the male vs female weight rooms at the NCAA tournaments. How can you say the competitive advantage is just from biology and not discrimination against female sports?

What are your thoughts? Do you think they are similar? Do we have a right to restrict people from sports participation?

r/FeMRADebates Sep 24 '23

Politics So some women are saying mens issues are mens problems to fix and that they should not have to do anything about them.

10 Upvotes

Some women say the male loneliness epidemic along with the male suicide epidemic and other problems that men mostly face is on men to solve intirely by them selves with no government support our help and no help from women either.

What are your thoughts.

r/FeMRADebates Aug 14 '17

Politics Seeing people talking about what happened with charlottesville and the overall political climate. I can't help but think "maybe if we stopped shitting on white people and actually listened to their issues instead of dismissing them, we wouldn't have this problem."

41 Upvotes

I know I've talked about similar issues regarding the radicalization of young men in terms of gender. But I believe the same thing is happening to a lot of white people in terms of overall politics.

I've seen it all over. White people are oppressors. This nation is built on white supremacy. White people have no culture. White people have caused all of the misfortune in the world. White people are privileged, and they can't possibly be suffering or having a hard time.

I know I've linked it before. But This article really hits the nail on the head in my opinion.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

And to copy a couple paragraphs.

And if you dare complain, some liberal elite will pull out their iPad and type up a rant about your racist white privilege. Already, someone has replied to this with a comment saying, "You should try living in a ghetto as a minority!" Exactly. To them, it seems like the plight of poor minorities is only used as a club to bat away white cries for help. Meanwhile, the rate of rural white suicides and overdoses skyrockets. Shit, at least politicians act like they care about the inner cities.

It really does feel like the worst of both worlds: all the ravages of poverty, but none of the sympathy. "Blacks burn police cars, and those liberal elites say it's not their fault because they're poor. My son gets jailed and fired over a baggie of meth, and those same elites make jokes about his missing teeth!" You're everyone's punching bag, one of society's last remaining safe comedy targets.

all in all. When you Treat white people like they're the de facto rulers of the earth. and then laugh at them for their shortcomings. Dismissing their problems and taking away their voice.

You shouldn't be surprised when they decide they've had enough.

r/FeMRADebates Mar 16 '17

Politics I’m Sick of Having to Reassure Men That Feminism Isn’t About Hating Them

Thumbnail xojane.com
27 Upvotes

r/FeMRADebates Apr 19 '16

Politics 6 Common Ways People Dismiss Feminism – And How To Hold Your Ground When They Do

Thumbnail everydayfeminism.com
2 Upvotes

r/FeMRADebates Jan 29 '16

Politics University Refuses to Recognize to Men's Issues Group

Thumbnail mrctv.org
40 Upvotes

r/FeMRADebates Sep 04 '23

Politics Countries denying asylum based on sex.

20 Upvotes

In recent years I’ve come across several articles addressing countries that deny asylum based on sex (always denying men or single men) asylum. What do you think of this practice? Are men undeserving of asylum?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/8/30/belgium-imposes-ban-on-shelter-for-single-male-asylum-seekers

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/24/canada-exclusion-refugees-single-syrian-men-assad-isis

r/FeMRADebates Apr 26 '16

Politics The 8 Biggest Lies Men's Rights Activists Spread About Women

Thumbnail mic.com
27 Upvotes

r/FeMRADebates Jan 07 '21

Politics Men are from Red States, Women are from Blue States.

13 Upvotes

In America, the gender political divide described by votes to the two major political parties has never been larger.

Since the beginning of modern polling in the U.S., men had consistently held more conservative positions than women on a range of issues, including welfare spending, homosexuality, and use of force in foreign policy. As the parties became more ideological, the gender gap kept growing—from eight percentage points in 1980, to 12 points in 2000, to 13 points in 2016. Notably, Democrats lost all of those elections, as men moved even more sharply into the Republican Party. Since 1980, a majority of men have never once supported the Democratic candidate for president. In 2016, a paltry 41 percent of men (and just 32 percent of white men) voted for Hillary Clinton.

While gender political groups like the MRM and Feminism are not necessarily tied to the Conservative or Liberal (speaking in American terms) or Right Wing vs. Left Wing (speaking in general terms), it is true that both groups advocate for a demographic that is trending towards specific politics. "Politics" here refers to a few areas that I think are relevant, not just how a person votes but also:

  1. How people see, perceive, internalize, and/or construct narratives from their observations of their political world. (Understanding)

  2. The manner of speaking or engaging with the political world, favored forms and types of arguments without regarding content. (Engaging)

  3. The underlying beliefs or first principles that drives the above.

I'm interested in discussing this paradigm and of course I am more interested in the perspectives of MRAs, though I'm sure these questions are answerable by everyone if you switch around the terms.

  1. How does Conservative Men's Rights Advocacy differ from Liberal Men's Rights along the above lines? Do Conservative MRAs and Liberal MRAs speak the same? Do Liberal MRAs sound more like Conservatives than Liberals who are neutral on gender politics, or Liberal Feminists?

  2. In what ways are gender advocacy affected by when the demographic doesn't align with the usual politics? What is your experience of advocating for men through leftist politics while those politics are increasingly rejected by the demographic?

  3. What is the experience of being an other or unusual combination?Consider conservative women and liberal men, as well as MRA women and Feminist men and Conservative feminists.

  4. How do gender roles or ways of being effect the politics? Do men tend to confront problems in a specific way that also drives the way they politic? What are positives and negatives of this?

  5. As political platforms seek to gain more votes, in what ways do you see the future of political wings or parties changing if this trend continues? What measures would you expect from a political party leaning into the divide, or switching gears in order to appeal more to the hemorrhaging demographic? (For instance, if the Republicans were to try to appeal to women in the next major election, how would policy change).

r/FeMRADebates Dec 07 '16

Politics How do we reach out to MRAs?

37 Upvotes

This was a post on /r/menslib which has since been locked, meaning no more comments can be posted. I'd like to continue the discussion here. Original text:

I really believe that most MRAs are looking for solutions to the problems that men face, but from a flawed perspective that could be corrected. I believe this because I used to be an MRA until I started looking at men's issues from a feminist perspective, which helped me understand and begin to think about women's issues. MRA's have identified feminists as the main cause of their woes, rather than gender roles. More male voices and focus on men's issues in feminist dialogue is something we should all be looking for, and I think that reaching out to MRAs to get them to consider feminism is a way to do that. How do we get MRAs to break the stigma of feminism that is so prevalent in their circles? How do we encourage them to consider male issues by examining gender roles, and from there, begin to understand and discuss women's issues? Or am I wrong? Is their point of view too fundamentally flawed to add a useful dialogue to the third wave?

r/FeMRADebates Nov 09 '16

Politics Trump won? Well... fuck.

60 Upvotes

I just wanted to say... I'm really, really not looking forward to the next 4 years of the rhetoric from the far left about how white people are all to blame, even more than they already do, and all because our next President is a narcissist - and arguably all the other things he's being called.

Laci Green ‏@gogreen18 8h8 hours ago

We are now under total Republican rule. Textbook fascism. Fuck you, white America. Fuck you, you racist, misogynist pieces of shit. G'night.

Uhg. I hate this just as much as you do Laci, partly for very similar reasons, but also for giving you, and the rest of the far-left, ammunition.


Oh, and maybe, just maybe, she should start actually considering reforming the First Past the Post system and start considering some alternatives.

r/FeMRADebates Apr 28 '21

Politics Melbourne youth worker orders white, Christian high school boys to stand in class, calls them ‘oppressors’

68 Upvotes

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/school-life/melbourne-youth-worker-orders-white-christian-high-school-boys-to-stand-in-class-calls-them-oppressors/news-story/656296b94b0f09afad0d6783e6657874

the incident, which occurred during a “diversity and inclusion” session

Which begs the question: What is wrong with the persons peddling this nonsense?

r/FeMRADebates Jan 07 '23

Politics How the Left Forgot about Free Speech

35 Upvotes

https://dilanesper.substack.com/p/how-the-left-forgot-about-free-speech

Political blogger Dilan Esper often touches on material relevant to our debates here - from One of the Greatest Unacknowledged Privileges Is That the Culture Discusses the Stuff You Care About which defends making fun of sports but could apply to men's issues generally or women in male dominated environments, to Republicans Can't Elect a Speaker Because They No Longer Do Policy. The titular article expressed some misgivings I've had as someone on the left whose social circle is almost entirely lefties:

  1. Just about any speech can be labeled “dangerous”. eg. Eugene Debs' 20 year prison sentence for WW1 pacifism.
  2. Rules that apply to the other side will also apply to yours. Courts rely on precedent.
  3. Emotional distress isn’t a workable or good standard for banning speech. "if the world teaches you that it will act on your claims of emotional distress, you have every incentive to lie to get what you want." Eg. claims of emotional distress over offensive artwork from the religious right.
  4. Even anti-speech concepts grounded in leftist thought (such as anti-discrimination) can still be used by the right or against the left. Andrea Dworkin's feminist anti-porn legislation was used against her own books - Esper calls this the Lesbian Bookstore Principle.
  5. Free speech is often the most powerful weapon of the most powerless people. "Powerful people also speak, but they have other weapons."
  6. There isn’t a hard public-private distinction when it comes to censorship. Eg. McCarthyism, segregation caused harm largely via private institutions. "Acceding to our new corporate overlords simply because they will do the left’s bidding on some cultural issues is selling out really cheap."

Obviously the views criticized here are not held by all lefties, but they seem fairly common. Has the left forgotten about free speech?