Fornaximus
Member
CHEEZMO;114943663 said:Do you watch South Park?
Sometimes, why?
CHEEZMO;114943663 said:Do you watch South Park?
Thank you.
The No True Scotswoman (wouldn't want to be sexist! ;p) issue is really one of my principle gripes with the contemporary feminist movement.
If a person--a blogger, a celebrity, whoever--says something we don't like, we always just say, "Oh, well, a true feminist wouldn't say that; you can't hold that against feminists." It absolves the feminist movement of any responsibility.
I understand that some people might genuinely view feminism as an ideal that truly is beneficial for men, considers black, Asian, and other minority women just as much as whites, respects cultural differences, etc. But if we want to define feminism that way, then we have to accept that its real-life adherents might not always live up to those standards.
Thank you and everyone else for your response(s). So here's my follow-up question: is your exposure to that community solely from the show that Mystery had on VH1 or any of its associated commentary/criticism?PUA gets wrapped up into this because the mentality is sexist, and the many people the programs fail tend to move on to become psychotic anti-feminists with PUA in common.
Wayne Elise is/was the PUA guy Juggler, and his entire schtick is the following:You will role-play in groups and individually. Wayne will critique and make changes until you understand how to create dynamic, fun and appealing conversation. This is an opportunity to be trained personally by Wayne. He will correct your body language, tone and conversational choices. He will structure your personal presentation into character driven stories that are compelling and sexy.
If feminists were men, the media would be calling upon us every day to explain why women are far more likely to obtain college degrees than men.
If feminists were men, the far higher conviction rates for men in our criminal justice system would be attributed to a massive societal biases against men.
If feminists were men, calling someone a "dick" would be a "gendered insult" that would get you banned from GAF.
If feminists were men, stoplights and anything else involving red-green distinctions would be claimed to be biased against men because men are more likely than women to be red/green colorblind.
If feminists were men, the fact that female orgasms are longer, frequent, and more satisfying would be used to "prove" that sex is inherently discriminatory against men.
If feminists were men, we'd be told about how scary it is to go out as a man because you can get kicked in the balls.
N.B. I don't think any of these complaints are REAL. They're (mostly) silly. They're demonstrating how you could apply the same "logic" of the feminist movement and arrive at the opposite conclusion.
The thing is, feminists don't need to pull a No True Scotsman fallacy. Sure, let's say some people who identify as feminists do hate men. Unless those sorts of people make up the majority of the movement, or even 1/3rd of it, there's really no problem. You typically don't judge an entire group based off the minority of their members. I certainly don't base my opinion on white people based on neo-nazi groups or the KKK for instance. I don't base my opinion of Christians on the WBC.
Thank you and everyone else for your response(s). So here's my follow-up question: is your exposure to that community solely from the show that Mystery had on VH1 or any of its associated commentary/criticism?
Let's put the "PUA" label aside for a moment and take a look at this: http://www.charismaarts.com/conversation-camp/
Wayne Elise is/was the PUA guy Juggler, and his entire schtick is the following:
1. Approach a woman
2. Tell her exactly your intentions and that you are interested in getting to know her better
3. Have a compelling conversation with her and see where things go
His "gimmicks" include things like talking about yourself and how you feel about things while being confident and funny. No "negs" or anything like that.
In what way does this resemble the MRA movement at all?
Also, disclaimer: I'm not part of the PUA community or anything, but I did look into quite a bit when I was single.
Ah. That isn't shocking. The MRAs I have seen on r/theredpill seem to want a system that enforces traditional gender roles. Even though that's ironically what causes some of their problems, like courts supposedly unfairly favoring women in custody cases because they are seen as being better caretakers.
Sometimes, why?
Thank you and everyone else for your response(s). So here's my follow-up question: is your exposure to that community solely from the show that Mystery had on VH1 or any of its associated commentary/criticism?
Let's put the "PUA" label aside for a moment and take a look at this: http://www.charismaarts.com/conversation-camp/
Wayne Elise is/was the PUA guy Juggler, and his entire schtick is the following:
1. Approach a woman
2. Tell her exactly your intentions and that you are interested in getting to know her better
3. Have a compelling conversation with her and see where things go
His "gimmicks" include things like talking about yourself and how you feel about things while being confident and funny. No "negs" or anything like that.
In what way does this resemble the MRA movement at all?
Also, disclaimer: I'm not part of the PUA community or anything, but I did look into quite a bit when I was single.
South Park basically espouses lazy social commentary/political philosophy that amounts to "X and Y are two popular positions. Let us straw man them to their extremes, and then assert that the truth must lie in between those two extremes." Or "both sides are EXACTLY the same on the surface, so let us ignore context, evidence, etc..."
Well I guess MRA's started more on the crazy spectrum and progressed from there, while feminist were more reasonable and in the center but very quickly got hijacked by the extremists.
I've never seen the show. Although, I read his book, I believe. It wasn't really my thing.
As far as Wayne's technique, it's basically what I think most people would call a conversation. A conversation from a particularly confident man, but still just a normal conversation. There's nothing wrong with approaching a woman, introducing yourself, and getting to know. Letting her know your intentions and seeing what happens. The guys who have a negative perception are those that walk around bars, assigning numbers to women, chasing after 10s (I don't know if they use the standard 1-10 grading system, or what) and attempting to manipulate them into sex through weird tricks and sleazy behavior.
How is it different from the guy lying to women and saying things like he loves them just to get into their pants (example from OP) or the guy who's creepily leering at a woman from afar, imagining all sorts of things, but never approaching her? If anything, it would be less fucked up than those things, no?PUA gets lumped in when it treats women (and their vaginas) like a commodity to be acquired rather than people.
The point I was trying to get across is that Wayne and his technique are PUA, too. This is why I think it's nonsense to make sweeping generalizations about that entire community off exposure to only one small subgroup of it.I've never seen the show. Although, I read his book, I believe. It wasn't really my thing.
As far as Wayne's technique, it's basically what I think most people would call a conversation. A conversation from a particularly confident man, but still just a normal conversation. There's nothing wrong with approaching a woman, introducing yourself, and getting to know. Letting her know your intentions and seeing what happens. The guys who have a negative perception are those that walk around bars, assigning numbers to women, chasing after 10s (I don't know if they use the standard 1-10 grading system, or what) and attempting to manipulate them into sex through weird tricks and sleazy behavior.
This is what bothers me most about them. The amount of exposure they get is ridiculous.I feel like in addition to being scum-sucking hate groups, by labelling themselves as men's rights they're also poisoning any meaningful or legitimate discourse on men's issues and perhaps even the idea that such issues could possibly exist.
They're all gross.How is it different from the guy lying to women and saying things like he loves them just to get into their pants (example from OP) or the guy who's creepily leering at a woman from afar, imagining all sorts of things, but never approaching her? If anything, it would be less fucked up than those things, no?
The distinction is in the individual; when he sees a woman, he automatically determines whether he considers her an object. The only things that change are the tools he is able to deploy to act upon however he's thinking.
Why don't you consider it manipulation to "act" in any manner in order to make a woman attracted to you?
creepily leering at a woman from afar, imagining all sorts of things, but never approaching her? If anything, it would be less fucked up than those things, no?
.
Actually I'm really curious and don't want to wade through MRA blogs/forums to find the answer to this.
How do MR groups currently feel about gay men? Are they just ignored, or actively disliked?
How is it different from the guy lying to women and saying things like he loves them just to get into their pants (example from OP) or the guy who's creepily leering at a woman from afar, imagining all sorts of things, but never approaching her? If anything, it would be less fucked up than those things, no?
The distinction is in the individual; when he sees a woman, he automatically determines whether he considers her an object. The only things that change are the tools he is able to deploy to act upon however he's thinking.
Why don't you consider it manipulation to "act" in any manner in order to make a woman attracted to you?
The irony of those who oppose men's rights is that their squelching of any discussion of the topic pretty much proves the need for the movement in the first place. If advocates of men's rights are as doofy as you claim, why not just let them post and be ignored?
The Big Lie that feminists perpetuate to justify their power is that they're some kind of oppressed, powerless group. But if that were really the case, you wouldn't see so many people afraid of offending them.
It's been said that to learn who rules over you, one simply has to find out who you are not allowed to criticize. If we aren't allowed to criticize the feminist movement, what does that say about American society today?
This is weird. I don't understand in what sense feminism has been hijacked by extremists. I can see how with groups that don't seem very interested in politics, like MRAs, it can be hard to figure out what's mainstream among them, but feminists as a group are quite active in politics and have been involved in pushing for lots of recent legislation, so we can just look to see what they advocate and what they help get passed.
I think it's mainly on the gaming side that feminists are often perceived as trigger-happy as far as complaints about oversexualization go.
I think the worst part about MRA is the limited and delusional opinion of what a man should be and should do.
That and their homophobic tendencies and gargantuan hate for feminism.
Yep, one of the more frustrating thing about all this. There are actual issues that need addressing that such a group would be especially adapt at doing so. Instead they, however many of them they are, waste their time being essentially a hate group :/>_<
The article does a good job covering it.
A good MR group would advocate for gay men.
It would advocate for men of color.
It would advocate for all the male nurses, flight attendants, interior decoraters, theater performers, cosmologists, etc. and their right to "masculinity."
It would advocate for stay-at-home dads.
It would advocate for fairer laws regarding parental rights of responsible fathers in cases where they are not married to the mother of their child in issues regarding healthcare and adoption.
It would educate against the pro-aggression, emotional detachment model by which young men are often raised.
It would rail against many traditional ideas of masculinity, in favor of new ideas that are more inclusive, more tolerant, and less likely to leave our boys emotionally fucked-up when they don't (or can't) conform to their rigidity.
In short: proper MR groups would be more like feminists instead of foaming at the mouth against them and making the entire movement about "those evil Feminists" and reminiscing about "the good old days" that actually weren't so good if you were weren't a straight white guy.
Bravo.
I'd add some of the things Mumei makes threads about: advocacy for male rape victims and male victims of domestic violence (current MRA groups tend to instead focus on anti-advocacy for female victims for some goddamn reason), prison reform advocacy, specifically aiming at prison rape, and of course reform of our racist justice system.
Thanks. I guess.They're all gross.
Of course not. I'm saying that the determination of how a person perceives others is made independently from what tools are at his disposal.You're saying that thought crimes are worse than actually lying to a person to manipulate them into sex?
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/16ygzs/is_there_space_for_gay_men_in_mensrights/
This is the first thread I found from the Men's Rights subreddit. There are some hateful posts, but most are positive.
The thing is, feminists don't need to pull a No True Scotsman fallacy. Sure, let's say some people who identify as feminists do hate men. Unless those sorts of people make up the majority of the movement, or even 1/3rd of it, there's really no problem. You typically don't judge an entire group based off the minority of their members. I certainly don't base my opinion on white people based on neo-nazi groups or the KKK for instance. I don't base my opinion of Christians on the WBC.
God yes, these are HUGE problems and I try to be incredibly vocal about them (hoping at least that by coming down on some folks it will stop being treated like a joke), but those threads just fade away without even making two pages, and it's fucking sad.
Bravo.
I'd add some of the things Mumei makes threads about: advocacy for male rape victims and male victims of domestic violence (current MRA groups tend to instead focus on anti-advocacy for female victims for some goddamn reason), prison reform advocacy, specifically aiming at prison rape, and of course reform of our racist justice system.
God yes, these are HUGE problems and I try to be incredibly vocal about them (hoping at least that by coming down on some folks it will stop being treated like a joke), but those threads just fade away without even making two pages, and it's fucking sad.
Yeah that brings up another point, if MR groups really want to focus on something, they should work on Rape culture. I find that rape being used as a justified form of punishment is disgusting and prepetuates a really fucked up of way of thinking.
Sensitivity towards rape would be a great start.
Men's Right is a stupid thing; it's not even needed in a country in which straight white men are the top of the social pile and "run" this country.
Really MRA is just some shit a bunch of whiners made up because they feel they're losing "power" to everyone else.
You're point falls down as not all white people self identify with the KKK or neo-nazis,
Feminist is a self appointed identity. It's a broad ideology, ranging from the moderate to the extreme. You absolutely have to take into consideration the extreme parts of a organisation or ideology when appraising it as a whole.
You can't ignore the endemic child abuse when looking at Catholicism, you can't ignore the Tea Party rhetoric when looking at the Republican party. Even if those are fringe, minority components.
If there is ever a legit men's rights movement, I would expect it benefits men of all ethnicities and backgrounds. How can you say such a thing is not needed when, for example, black men are disproportionately incarcerated and deprived of parental rights more than anyone else?
Yeah those threads always go away too quickly. I wonder why.
The article does a good job covering it.
A good MR group would advocate for gay men.
It would advocate for men of color.
It would advocate for all the male nurses, flight attendants, interior decoraters, theater performers, cosmologists, etc. and their right to "masculinity."
It would advocate for stay-at-home dads.
It would advocate for fairer laws regarding parental rights of responsible fathers in cases where they are not married to the mother of their child in issues regarding healthcare and adoption.
It would educate against the pro-aggression, emotional detachment model by which young men are often raised.
It would rail against many traditional ideas of masculinity, in favor of new ideas that are more inclusive, more tolerant, and less likely to leave our boys emotionally fucked-up when they don't (or can't) conform to their rigidity.
In short: proper MR groups would be more like feminists instead of foaming at the mouth against them and making the entire movement about "those evil Feminists" and reminiscing about "the good old days" that actually weren't so good if you were weren't a straight white guy.
The article does a good job covering it.
A good MR group would advocate for gay men.
It would advocate for men of color.
It would advocate for all the male nurses, flight attendants, interior decoraters, theater performers, cosmologists, etc. and their right to "masculinity."
It would advocate for stay-at-home dads.
It would advocate for fairer laws regarding parental rights of responsible fathers in cases where they are not married to the mother of their child in issues regarding healthcare and adoption.
It would educate against the pro-aggression, emotional detachment model by which young men are often raised.
It would rail against many traditional ideas of masculinity, in favor of new ideas that are more inclusive, more tolerant, and less likely to leave our boys emotionally fucked-up when they don't (or can't) conform to their rigidity.
In short: proper MR groups would be more like feminists instead of foaming at the mouth against them and making the entire movement about "those evil Feminists" and reminiscing about "the good old days" that actually weren't so good if you were weren't a straight white guy.
Bravo.
I'd add some of the things Mumei makes threads about: advocacy for male rape victims and male victims of domestic violence (current MRA groups tend to instead focus on anti-advocacy for female victims for some goddamn reason), prison reform advocacy, specifically aiming at prison rape, and of course reform of our racist justice system.
If there is ever a legit men's rights movement, I would expect it benefits men of all ethnicities and backgrounds. How can you say such a thing is not needed when, for example, black men are disproportionately incarcerated and deprived of parental rights more than anyone else?
Feminist anti-bumping agenda
As for some of these other things...
What does "right to masculinity" even mean? A male nurse has his masculinity taken away? By who?
But don't all KKK members and neo-nazis identify as white?You're point falls down as not all white people self identify with the KKK or neo-nazis
Well I mean if someone made a petition or something they might sign it if you told them about it maybe.The sad thing is that MRAs are mostly all complain and no action. Has there been any MRA groups that actually tried doing something?
One thing I don't get is why PUA always gets lumped into this. And it's always the same "treating women as a commodity" argument, too. It's quite a myopic sweeping generalization. What about the guy who is afraid to talk to women in public settings and just wants to learn how to do it of the guy who just wants to be a better conversationalist so he doesn't bore people when he tries to talk to them? Not everyone is Mystery.
So, it seems like Men's Rights Movement has so been sufficiently damaged by the actions of its followers to the point where even though many in here are quick to point out that it's just wrong to categorically put feminism in broad generalizing terms such as "women that hates men" etc etc; no one would even blink if the same broad generalizing terms such as "men that hates women" are attached to the Men's Rights Movement.