Support NeoGAF

[Fornaximus]

Do you watch South Park?

Sometimes, why?

 

[CornBurrito]

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.

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.

 

[Septimus Prime]

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.

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/

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.

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.

 

[Deleted member 20920]

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.

Thanks for the headache and I'm glad you're banned.

 

[Deified Data]

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.

You would think this would be plainly obvious but sometimes making those points as an MRA requires a deft hand at willful ignorance and self delusion.

 

[Devolution]

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.

PUA gets lumped in when it treats women (and their vaginas) like a commodity to be acquired rather than people.

 

[Angelus Errare]

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.

theredpill is toxic as fuck, I remember someone asking "what about black men" and while many people were like "They should join too!" ultimately their attitude was "well they DO have their own movements…" and "once we get our equality, we'll focus on theirs". When really if we addressed the plights of all these other groups first, the need for MRAs would decrease (logically anyway; lord knows they'll kick and holler about their rights being trampled or some nonsense like that. But honestly I don't even think there's a need for MRA).

As a minority, I see MRA as nothing more than the White Men's club of America and I'm not really invited even though they say I am (Basically...it's America). So really it's most surface level prejudice is gone, but the more subtle but even more damaging prejudice remains. And as such I can't take MRA seriously at all. I really can't begin to feel bad about the white man's plight when the black male's situation as remained relatively the same since we were dragged to this continent.

And I'm sure a MRA member will point out that our President is black and will miss the irony in that.

 

[squidyj]

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.

 

[CornBurrito]

Sometimes, why?

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..."

 

[Orbis Tabula]

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.

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.

 

[Slayven]

Article barely touched the racist overtones.

 

[Fornaximus]

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..."

Oh, I was being insulted. Thank you.

 

[Gotchaye]

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.

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.

The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act gets held up as a victory for feminists in the fight against pay discrimination, and... it's a pretty anodyne law. It extends the statute of limitations for pay discrimination cases. There's currently a push to make businesses articulate a business-relevant reason for different pay rates. Criticism of this sort of thing tends to focus on the problem of unequal pay being overstated or on the solutions being misdirected (e.g. that this just enriches lawyers) rather than on it being about women seeking to dominate men. So, pretty mainstream stuff, surely.

A feminist goal for health care reform was to prevent insurers from discriminating between men and women. This seems hard to characterize as "extremist". There was and is substantial controversy over requirements that employer-provided insurance cover various women's reproductive health care items, but support for this is again not something limited to the radical fringe, and opposition is clearly not motivated by a desire to protect men from feminist overreach.

Abortion is an issue that motivates feminists politically like little else, and the sorts of laws feminists fight for enjoy broad support. Something like 50% of the public thinks abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Feminists spend most of their political capital on this issue in fighting restrictions on abortion that are pretty clearly against the values of most of the population. And of course opposition to abortion rights is not usually about protecting men from feminism.

So given that feminists actually do stuff, and it's almost all pretty mainstream political stuff that's very plausibly related to protecting women's rights and not even most Republicans are arguing that it's about oppressing men, it seems kind of weird to say that the movement has been hijacked by extremists.

 

[thekad]

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.

Why don't you consider it manipulation to "act" in any manner in order to make a woman attracted to you?

 

[Septimus Prime]

PUA gets lumped in when it treats women (and their vaginas) like a commodity to be acquired rather than people.

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.

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.

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.

It's as silly to me as people applying labels to all gamers.

 

[Aurongel]

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.

This is what bothers me most about them. The amount of exposure they get is ridiculous.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

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.

They're all gross.

 

[CornBurrito]

Why don't you consider it manipulation to "act" in any manner in order to make a woman attracted to you?

I mean I guess acting self-confident when you aren't is manipulation. But I don't really see a problem.

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?
.

You're saying that thought crimes are worse than actually lying to a person to manipulate them into sex?

 

[Nachos]

It pains me to think that I easily could have walked down this path, and, in a lot of ways, it genuinely scares me. I was a typical goober right out of high school - not particularly socially adept, and that extended to me never being in a relationship before. I felt pressured - as if though something was fundamentally wrong with me - and I was desperate to find any way to actually fix those supposed issues.

Then came along the ideas of PUA, and I was ready to throw myself into it, all for the sake of getting rid of this stigma that only I held for myself. Luckily I wisened up before actually putting any of this into practice. It was a good thing, too, because I'm certain that no matter who it works be with, any relationship would be doomed to fail. They'd understandably try to rid themselves of someone toxic - me - yet I wouldn't get that; I'd believe these "infallible" teachings were right, and that all the negative things they said about women would obviously be true.

It'd provide an easy way for those poisonous ideas to become further ingrained, all while providing an easy target to blame, never redirecting it towards the actual common denominator. That's the genius behind this bullshit: it encourages adhering to such a rigid ideal of masculinity that it isolates you from any potential solutions that would not only be legitimately healthy and effective, but long-lasting, as well. It provides an easy boogie (wo)man to vilify, thus allowing you to view yourself as a victim.

With these ideas cementing you further and further into an unhealthy mindset with no effective means of support, the only remaining bastions are these incredibly gross message boards. You're then stuck in an echo chamber, with these other, similarly hurt men to bounce ideas off of. With nothing to challenge these delusional notions, these just continue to bounce around again and again, becoming progressively more perverted each time. None of them are in any position to help others, yet they try anyway, creating even more damage. That's not to say that there aren't some positive ideas to related to the movement out there, but they're general teachings applicable to people in general, no matter how you identify yourself, that unfortunately get passed over in service of codifying their maligned world views.

There absolutely are issues related to men that do need to be addressed, but I have no faith at all in MRAs actually being competent enough to tackle them.

 

[Alxjn]

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?

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.

 

[Devolution]

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.

Such groups legitimize and even profit from that awful line of thinking. It's not different, it's just even more decrepit when it becomes a bonding and profit mechanism.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

Why don't you consider it manipulation to "act" in any manner in order to make a woman attracted to you?

Well, to be frank, any interaction with any other person is essentially a manipulation. That is very true. Every conversation that any two people had is a conscious decision by one to try to influence the other. And I also see no problem with men going to bars to pick up women for one night stands, provided the woman is interested as well. Honestly, I don't really have much anger towards PUAs. I don't really see them as a harmful element of society, and were I single, who knows, maybe I would have ended up there. If a guy wants to be smooth and charming to pick up a woman who is interested in him, that's fine. Even if he looks sleazy to me while doing it, that shouldn't matter. I was more trying to clear up for that poster why PUAs are often grouped with RedPillers and other less popular MRAs. And it's mostly because they're behavior seems motivated by a desire to "collect" sex with many women, using them as bragging rights.

But again, if any amount of consenting adults decide to have sex together, I couldn't really give a fuck. Go be a PUA. I won't begrudge you or look down on you.

 

[Earthstrike]

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?

You are allowed to criticize feminist groups. To believe otherwise is outright incorrect.

Generally, when a rights group comes along, the thing that makes it a right group is that it fights for the right of that group. Martin Luther King fought for the rights of blacks. He didn't fight to strip whites of rights, he fought for blacks to be elevated to have the same rights as white people.

Mra's aren't fighting to elevate men. They are screaming and kicking about how much they hate feminists and how bad they are. That's the difference. Fighting for men's rights means identifying a right a women has that a man does not and taking steps to secure it. I have yet to see this be tangibly achieved on any kind of legal or cultural level.

 

[Zweizer]

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.

 

[Satch]

I think it's mainly on the gaming side that feminists are often perceived as trigger-happy as far as complaints about oversexualization go.

Trust me, Off Topic does it too.

 

[Murder. She Wrote]

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.

 

[Devolution]

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.

Don't forget the racism. It's in there too.

 

[Messofanego]

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 :/ >_<

Kinda like PETA, these are extremist groups shouting at others without wanting to do anything positive.

 

[Cyan]

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.

 

[User 100115]

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.

 

[Septimus Prime]

They're all gross.

Thanks. I guess.

You're saying that thought crimes are worse than actually lying to a person to manipulate them into sex?

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.

 

[CornBurrito]

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.

Huh interesting. It seems (from that single thread) that r/Men'sRights isn't the vile cesspool that r/TheRedPill is. Which group formed first exactly?

 

[CLEEK]

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.

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.

 

[entremet]

The Red Pillers are hella racists.

They use evolutionary psychology tropes not just in gender stuff but with ethnicities. Not shocked that sexists and racists intersect.

 

[Derwind]

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.

 

[Deleted member 20920]

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 those threads always go away too quickly. I wonder why.

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.

The sad thing is that MRAs are mostly all complain and no action. Has there been any MRA groups that actually tried doing something?

 

[God Dayumm]

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.

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?

 

[CornBurrito]

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.

I don't ignore child abuse when looking at Catholocism. But I don't think most Catholics defend child abuse, or would be glad to sweep it under the rug.

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?

I don't think that issue would need to be tackled by a MR group. It could just as easily be tackled by groups who wish to highlight and eliminate racism that plagues society.

 

[Karkador]

Yeah those threads always go away too quickly. I wonder why.

Feminist anti-bumping agenda

 

[Angelus Errare]

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.

This. And the current MRA movement is anything but. Excuse me while I continue to say fuck the MRA movement.

 

[Crocodile]

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.

I missed this post the first time around but

 

[akachan ningen]

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.

Are those things and the things royalan really part of "men's rights" though? I mean our racist justice system is about as it gets but I don't see a lot of these things as MR issues.

As for some of these other things...
What does "right to masculinity" even mean? A male nurse has his masculinity taken away? By who? Why does a stay at home dad need advocates on his behalf? So that mean people on the internet won't call him a housewife?

It seems to me like a lot of these issues fall under the umbrella of other groups that are already established OR they are just things that a normal secure man could just brush off and say "I don't give a fuck what they say about me."

 

[Angelus Errare]

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?

Because the current MRA doesn't care about black men at all? I should have worded it better, I wasn't saying a Men's Right movement itself isn't needed, but MRA as we know it isn't needed in America.

I pretty much state this later in the thread as my main issue against MRA.

 

[Deleted member 20920]

Feminist anti-bumping agenda

Lol...But a lot of the research and movements, like investigating male rape or what not in Mumei's threads were actually done by feminists. Must be those real extreme men hating feminists at work again! Infiltrating forums and putting on the invisible cloak on these threads.

 

[CLEEK]

I'm sure there is some cross over between them, but I don't understand why MRA and PAU are combined into a whole. Surely they're separate movements?

MRA is anti-feminist, but PAU is just plain dehumanizing towards woman. And men they deem as beta.

I can't imagine that self styled alpha PAU guys would have much sympathy for male rape victims (the cause celebre of MRAs).

 

[activatethesmile]

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.

 

[CornBurrito]

As for some of these other things...
What does "right to masculinity" even mean? A male nurse has his masculinity taken away? By who?

By a bunch of people, including tons of men who find nursing the be inherently feminine and look down on men who pursue that discipline.

 

[APF]

You're point falls down as not all white people self identify with the KKK or neo-nazis

But don't all KKK members and neo-nazis identify as white?

The sad thing is that MRAs are mostly all complain and no action. Has there been any MRA groups that actually tried doing something?

Well I mean if someone made a petition or something they might sign it if you told them about it maybe.

 

[Bleepey]

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.

I personally think it's one of those ways to demonise men who aren't successfull with women. If a guy sucks with meeting women and then decides to learn about it from people who are better than him at it, he is viewed as predatory, misogynist and all manner of other shit because he was not born charismatic or confident enough out of the womb. If a woman wants dating advice she has a shit tonne of advice from women's magazines, sites and the Rules books where they can get advice without being judged. Hell when I met Neil Strauss, the line was filled with a lot of women who had given the Game to their male friends who had shit luck with women. As for MRAs=PUAs. I truly don't see how they are the same thing.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

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.

While there have been many posters writing off the Men's Rights Movement as nonsense in this thread, I think you'll find a much larger amount of posters who have identified as feminists, said that they are concerned about and recognize men's rights issues, and said that the movement is being damaged by a loud sect that has co-opted the name. However, many people have been cavalier in their criticisms, so it isn't clear with some if they are attacking those who are concerned about men's rights, or those who are RedPillers, which make up a loud part of the movement, and give it a bad name.