5 Uncomfortable Truths Behind the Men's Rights Movement
- Thread starter JohnDoe
- Start date
- Status
So, "Why does it exist in spite of it, and what can be done to bridge the gap between the non-crazies on both sides?" should be a discussion. Instead, it always devolves into name-calling.
(Note: in the following section, I am not trying to false-equivocate anything, I'm very aware that the sum total and seriousness of the issues facing women vastly outweighs those facing men.)
The fundamental problem is one of perspective, self-interest, and a lack of empathy on both sides. We respond strongly to negative stimuli. Men see problems in their lives, things they don't like, and they work for ways to remedy the problems they see. Women do the same, looking specifically to remedy their issues. These movements attract people who feel aggrieved, victimized, etc., by forces outside their control, and who specifically want their interests to be taking center stage.
This leads to conflict. Often people aren't able to step back and look at the broader whole to understand where conflicts are coming from. The world is not one monolithic layered pyramid, where there's a clear upper class, and you can just point to a chart to find out where you stand next to someone, because everything is contextual. Men are privileged in many ways over women. However, in some situations, Women have privilege that men do not. Sex, Gender, Race, Nationality, Sexual Orientation, etc. - these all work in an interlocking fabric that manipulates the way our lives play out.
But backing up and trying to see a top-down aerial view of these issues appears to be incredibly hard for people, let alone trying to use empathy to try and imagine themselves in someone else's first-person view for a day. I do not think it's an accident that the most frequent blow-ups occur regarding sex. Men and women do not experience the world in nearly the same way, and have different ideal "endstates" for what their ideal world would look like in that regard. Tremendous resentment builds up due to each of them desiring the other half of the species to act like their half instead, leading to a blow-up each time we have a topic about eye candy in video games, how straight guys communicate on Tinder, or how men are deeply frustrated by a lack of sexual contact.
And so we see the camps divide, each feels as though its being attacked by the other and not taken seriously. People segregate, much like a HS lunchroom, not able to talk to each other about serious issues, because when one side expresses how it feels, the other dismisses it off-hand as being "stupid" or "wrong", even if its simply a feeling, which isn't "wrong or right" - it just is.
I don't know what the answer is to try and fix or bridge this. It feels like we're doomed to repeat this cycle, because people simply can't break out of their own experience and self-interest and trust that many people are actively being honest, instead of trying to insert their own values, experience and emotions into someone else's head and tell them what they would have done. There's so much stuff that shouldn't be controversial to fix in the least that just gets left undone because people can't trust in neutral data or each other.
I think people have been pretty clear that their impression is that there are very few non-misogynist MRAs such that misogyny is mainstream in the movement. This is why people are asking for examples of what good things MRAs have accomplished and the like - they want evidence that the bulk of the movement is about working on issues facing men. Where are the MRA-identifying intellectuals thinking through the issues? Where are the non-misogynistic awareness campaigns? What steps have MRAs taken to advance policies they favor? Even just online, where is there a vibrant MRA-identifying space that isn't full of misogyny?
It's trivially easy to point out all of these things for feminism.
That would solve many of the world's problems.
Thankfully I've only had limited exposure to the Men's Rights Movements. Last I heard there were campaigns at my university for "Men's Centres" (we have "Women's Centres"), and Men-only gym hours (we have Women-only hours). Quite frankly I see the need for the women's versions but not the men's. This apparently makes me anti-male.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Who types this out and actually thinks, "Wow, this is such a great idea. I can't wait to show it to the world and prove my point, they will see my point of view now."
Angelus Errare
Banned
lmao.
AbortedWalrusFetus
Member
It's a shame this happened to the label. Back in my college days I called myself a MRA, years ago. There are a lot of things out there that are not working for men that I really think need addressing. The educational status of men, how men are punished for crimes more more severely than women, the issues surrounding pedophilia and the connotations males around children have taken on, some issues with child custody/alimony laws, and the terrible state of mental health treatment and prevention for men. There's a lot out there that needs fixing that core feminist groups do not really spend much time addressing (there's nothing wrong with this, not every issue can be tackled by every group). It's really sad to see what should have been a completely positive thing that should have been about changing the status quo for men in ways the feminist movement is not and can not. Now it's embarassing to be associated with MRAs, because all they are is a bunch of losers out to make others suffer.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
This. No doubt there are issues that can be discussed and addressed, but the MRA shit has taken it to... well this
I think the constant references to "extreme feminists" are a result of the media. It's amazing how many children's stories are about an evil matriarchy that hates men and tries to kill them all/enslave them all/overthrow honest 'murrica. That's an over-the-top example, but when you have those sorts of themes presented of women banding to underman and destroy men everywhere since childhood they seep into the collective consciousness.
When the horrible Feminist extreme most people immediately mention is fucking Tumblr, the movement sounds downright cuddly.
When the horrible Feminist extreme most people immediately mention is fucking Tumblr, the movement sounds downright cuddly.
benjipwns
Banned
This works for almost anything, that's the only way to grab your attention to setup their argument against [whatever] because otherwise you can't setup the false choice between the ever flexible "us" and "the other" we must war against.
Devolution
Member
Pantsless ducks are the true enemy.
User 100115
Banned
What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that feminism isn't 'against' men. It's against toxic ideas, attitudes, and actions that lead to discrimination and violence.
The flip side is that the majority of MRA groups seem to be 'against' women and feminism.
The flip side is that the majority of MRA groups seem to be 'against' women and feminism.
Interesting article. TBH, I'm a little ignorant on MRA's. I mean, I had an understanding that they exist and what their goal (if you can it that) was, but the more I read about it, the more uncomfortable it makes me. These guys have mothers, sisters, aunts, grandmothers right? What if some dude was calling their sister a whore b/c she wasn't into him and was into another guy? How well would they take that or do they even think about stuff like that? I find the whole culture around MRA's quite scary the more I read about it.
benjipwns
Banned
It's the only way to ward off shadowmod.
They aim high.
What precisely do you mean by "hard data"? Exactly what do you consider admissible evidence? I'm frankly getting the strong sense that you have absolutely no sincere interest in determining whether or not the men's right movement is misogynist, but rather that you are simply trying to deny the accusation is by demanding a higher standard of evidence than is reasonable.
This isn't just a matter of a handful of notable examples of extremism. It's a matter of every single major website, every public figure that I, at least, am familiar with. There's absolutely no evidence against the assertion that misogyny is mainstream in the men's rights movement. This is why, as Gotchaye pointed out, people are asking for examples of men's rights groups not being complete wastes of time: We've yet to actually see these mythical useful and not-hateful men's rights groups.
Go read an MRA forum. Then tell me how willing you think they'd be to bringing such a discussion to the table. Most of the "non-crazies" on both sides (which you may want to define, because there is a disagreement on what "extreme feminism" truly is and how it's used as a cudgel against feminists of any stripe) already have bridged the gap for themselves. And all you have left is the militants who attack the reasonable people having this discussion. Perhaps the debate should be "how do we keep these lunatics out of our reasonable discussions on social issues?"
Deified Data
Banned
This would be the most productive bit of advocacy I've ever seen from the MRM.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Psh more like feminist are trampling on Mens' rights and MRA are takin' back!...or something like that.
Hopeless guys tend to flock to MRA and it's an echo chamber for them. "It's not you bro, it's those feminist bitches" and such like statements.
#notallmen
Devolution
Member
Those women are extensions of themselves so they would typically care in some respects but you have to remember these kinds of people are working with a very narrow definition of woman to start with. Typically it's women that have done them wrong in some way (and typically it's not a "wrong" at all, just a part of life). Ex-gfs, ex-wives, women who just wont give them attention. A lot of that anger is just focused towards them and the strides feminism has made so that they're not entitled to a woman's affection simply because they have a job and she's expected to just rear children and be a wife.
The MRAs that genuinely care about men's issues and are rational, are honestly, already feminists.
The foundations have already been laid for a movement to break away from the gender roles that have backfired on a significant portion of men. The real issue is getting men on board to tackle the problem with other men. There are so many frustrated individuals who don't understand that their problems lie not with the feminists who've made strides for women, or women themselves but the constructs that have also imprisoned men into these narrow and confined boxes of what it means to be a man. And who made these boxes? At the end of the day men did and they're the number one enforcers even when women buy into it.
Some of them get this but a lot of them merely turn a blind eye to discussions of what to do about violence against men, mental health for men, to go post in some thread about issues pervading women to derail it about those same issues. The people who constantly bicker about men's issues getting attention will be silent when such a thread pops up. Because they truly don't care, it's just a derailing tactic. Mumei has made several threads about issues persistently affecting men but they fall off the main page in no time.
In other parts of the internet you see them screaming about how a place like GAF is so ultrafeminist and Mumei is some feminazi fascist and are other mods as they actually post facts about such issues as men getting custody if and when they fight for it, or ban people for egregious victim blaming.
No solutions, no activism, just hate and trolling of individuals who they can't silence with harassment and threats. It makes me feel bad for anyone genuinely seeking answers for how they feel and they're pointed in this incredibly unproductive and vile direction.
benjipwns
Banned
This was perfect.
Great post. However if we accept that the overall MRA movement is not doing good, should we ask if there should be an MRA type advocacy in the first place? ie. One that isn't misogynistic and looks at real problems?
Is something like that even viable? I feel like even when we try to talk about Men's issues seriously, there is a kind of a "suck it up" attitude towards this, because Men have predominantly (and unfairly) had greater advantages and privileges in the last decade(s). And even today we are still working on better equality. So even in cases where there should be legitimate concerns over Men's issues, it seems like it's hard to talk about it seriously without being dismissed.
Just wanted to comment on this:
The only reason threads on things pertaining to feminism on Neogaf tend to reach 5+ pages is because some argument about whatever pops up in there somewhere. Were there not such discourse it's likely those threads would fall off of the front page in no time as well.
As such I find it pretty unfair that you're chocking it up to "those posters not caring" in the threads pertaining to men's issues. They could care all they want but without any sort of discussion to be had beyond a myriad of posts saying "that's horrible" there's no way the threads will last very long.
EDIT: And even then in the event the MRA types didn't care at all, those threads not getting past two pages is by no means a reflection on them alone.
There can be somethings to talk about, like mandatory military service 2 years for men in Korea who gain absolutely nothing out of it, while women are free from that issue. I'm sure there are other problems in that vein in the states. There's also the issue of trivializing male rape. Those are the subjects worth talking about
The problem is MRA groups aren't interested in that. They just want a platform to bitch and moan about women
The problem is MRA groups aren't interested in that. They just want a platform to bitch and moan about women
They aim high.
What precisely do you mean by "hard data"? Exactly what do you consider admissible evidence? I'm frankly getting the strong sense that you have absolutely no sincere interest in determining whether or not the men's right movement is misogynist, but rather that you are simply trying to deny the accusation is by demanding a higher standard of evidence than is reasonable.
This isn't just a matter of a handful of notable examples of extremism. It's a matter of every single major website, every public figure that I, at least, am familiar with. There's absolutely no evidence against the assertion that misogyny is mainstream in the men's rights movement. This is why, as Gotchaye pointed out, people are asking for examples of men's rights groups not being complete wastes of time: We've yet to actually see these mythical useful and not-hateful men's rights groups.
The only thing I can think of has to do with a point I mentioned earlier: 12 men sued Utah earlier this year for violation of their parental rights by allowing mothers to give their children up for adoption without their knowledge and consent.
Then again, these men don't seem to be aligned with any particular men's rights group, so I don't think it counts.
The point still stands: any evidence that men's rights activists exist for any other point than to be contrary to the Feminist Monster seems weak and sporadic.
I think one of main things that men's rights advocates and PUAs (and the incels and MGTOW!) have in common is a belief in the notion of female hypergamy, combined with pseudo-scientific explanations derived from evolutionary psychology. Essentially what they argue is women are all nasty gold-diggers or status-seekers who are ever seeking men who are richer / higher status. PUAs tend to react to this by attempting to emulate or become high status men ("the assholes"), so that they can enjoy the women riding the cock carousel (their term, not mine!). See, the idea goes that women go around having sex with a bunch of a different men in their 20s, but once they reach their 30s their "sexual market value" (their unscientific and meaningless term, not mine!) starts to fall off a cliff and they find some beta chump to marry them after she's been all used up and is basically useless. Hypergamy is also what causes women to cuckold beta men, because their need to sleep with higher status men is insatiable, and there's always someone with higher status. They also assume that only a small fraction of men are taking advantage of all this female promiscuity, and all this sex is had by the high status males:
That was Elliot Rodgers' chart, but the "before sexual revolution / after sexual revolution" nonsense was not something he created himself.
MRAs advocates seem to be less interested in trying to take advantage of this supposed quirk of female psychology, and instead mostly complain about it / make stupid arguments about how hypergamy means that women shouldn't go to college because, God, how is she going to satisfy her hypergamy needs if she gets all educated and high-status herself?, or how women are incapable of true attachment or love and are mostly just automatons whose overriding biological imperative is "finding high-status man."
Even if they don't necessarily use the word "hypergamy" (though it does pop up a lot), the basic assumption underlies a lot of what they write. And they're also united in their belief that feminism is The Enemy (after all, feminism contributed to that awful sexual revolution in the first place).
clearacell
Member
For sure we need a European style paternity leave (I wanna see my kids grow up too!) and a stop to the perception that men are always potential rapists.
Thanks for the response. That was very enlightening.
Well, yes. Exactly. The reason threads pertaining to women's issues blow up is because they're full of arguments. The reason threads pertaining to men's issues don't is because they're largely non-controversial. No one is popping into Mumei's thread about the difficulties that male rape victims go through to say "um hello, rape is way more of a problem for women you sexists," or "jeez, don't you guys realize that false rape accusations from men are endemic?"
Yep. It might be useful to consider why that might be.
I know three college graduates, all fresh out of a feminism philosophy class (which I also did) who are just like this. Not about the rape issue, but men's issues (not the freaky MRM-type ones) Everybody I know sadly seems to think feminists are like this, largely because the only ones they know are the same way.
Red Arremer
Member
The right to go to the authorities and not be laughed at or ignored after telling them they were raped or otherwise abused by a woman. According to many states' and countries' laws, forced sex that is non-penetrating (and there only as the recipient of the penetration) is not rape.
There's also many inequalities in how men are treated by society and authorities. The general perspective of seeing every single man as a potential criminal/rapist, or treating basically any conflict situation between a man and a woman for the man to be the perpetrator and the woman the victim, regardless of the actual facts.
This also moves into divorcing parents, where the mother usually is favored in being given guardianship to the child(ren), regardless of the situation.
And in most countries with compulsory military conscription, women are not drafted, only men are.
While I agree that most MRA groups are just sexist circle-jerks, there are issues within our society that prove that we not only have to fight for equality for women, but equality for both sexes. Especially the perception of every man being a potential criminal or sex offender that has become more and more dominant in the past decade or so, while also oppressing them from reporting if they were the victims of sex crime is something we certainly have to look at.
I think one of main things that men's rights advocates and PUAs (and the incels and MGTOW!) have in common is a belief in the notion of female hypergamy, combined with pseudo-scientific explanations derived from evolutionary psychology. Essentially what they argue is women are all nasty gold-diggers or status-seekers who are ever seeking men who are richer / higher status. PUAs tend to react to this by attempting to emulate or become high status men ("the assholes"), so that they can enjoy the women riding the cock carousel (their term, not mine!). See, the idea goes that women go around having sex with a bunch of a different men in their 20s, but once they reach their 30s their "sexual market value" (their unscientific and meaningless term, not mine!) starts to fall off a cliff and they find some beta chump to marry them after she's been all used up and is basically useless. Hypergamy is also what causes women to cuckold beta men, because their need to sleep with higher status men is insatiable, and there's always someone with higher status. They also assume that only a small fraction of men are taking advantage of all this female promiscuity, and all this sex is had by the high status males:
That was Elliot Rodgers' chart, but the "before sexual revolution / after sexual revolution" nonsense was not something he created himself.
MRAs advocates seem to be less interested in trying to take advantage of this supposed quirk of female psychology, and instead mostly complain about it / make stupid arguments about how hypergamy means that women shouldn't go to college because, God, how is she going to satisfy her hypergamy needs if she gets all educated and high-status herself?, or how women are incapable of true attachment or love and are mostly just automatons whose overriding biological imperative is "finding high-status man."
Even if they don't necessarily use the word "hypergamy" (though it does pop up a lot), the basic assumption underlies a lot of what they write. And they're also united in their belief that feminism is The Enemy (after all, feminism contributed to that awful sexual revolution in the first place).
What? I have no idea about the PUA movement but why can't the approach be something less absurd such as;
- People, regardless of gender generally want to find physical and emotional intimacy with other people, in various configurations of course.
- Groups of people tend to go for particular qualities.
- In order to better find intimacy we should try emulating or incorporating these qualities in order to become more successful in finding intimacy.
Women's magazines do this all the time, "5 dresses to turn him on", "10 ways to make your man want you more." etc etc. I don't see what's wrong with repackaging that sort of approach towards men.
benjipwns
Banned
I think some of this, and the horror that is the family court system, is where MRA should be spending their time. Not arguing with whatever Jezebel wrote this week about some ad that's sexist.
Or taking things to extremes on this just to even the playing field when the game itself is a disaster.
This one just needs to be opposed by everyone of all sexes because slavery is wrong. Women shouldn't be subject to it only because equity isn't always the solution.
Only true issue I personally have with gender inequality that I consider bullshit(as a man) is the selective service being able to draft me to fill my role as a warm body but not, say, the other 50% of the population that meets fitness and age requirements. Ideally, there wouldn't be a need for the selective service at all, but if we absolutely have to have it, I'd feel better knowing that people are equally being drafted.
Red Arremer
Member
And of course, feminists who give "advice" on how to meet women are engaging in the same generalizing that PUAs do.
Didn't expect a poster to basically prove every point from the article in the thread, wow.
Great post. That is basically what I was thinking about the whole thing give or take. I hope one day something like that will actually come about, maybe targeted more towards celebration and recognition while working towards the issues that are still present.
Great post. That is basically what I was thinking about the whole thing give or take. I hope one day something like that will actually come about, maybe targeted more towards celebration and recognition while working towards the issues that are still present.
Nealand Liquor
Member
I remember feeling like my rights as a person were being trampled upon when I was fighting for the right to just have visitation with my son. I had felt a mens movement for fair parental rights was needed. Both myself and my son suffered due to an imbalanced family court system in Canada, but this shit these guys talk about is NOT what I ever imagined Mens Rights being all about.
Balance will never come if this is the message these are the men believe the need to speak to.
Balance will never come if this is the message these are the men believe the need to speak to.
This is not the sort of thing that I'm very engaged with, politically. I'm always up for big picture stuff but when it comes to the nitty-gritty of gender issues I just believe what Mumei tells me to believe.
But I think the obvious thing is to do some comparative men's rights to figure out what people who actually care a lot about these issues might want to focus on. Where do men have it better than here, without that coming at the expense of women? And my impression is that many European countries do a lot better. More-or-less gender-neutral parental leave is encouraged or required by the state. They incarcerate a much lower percentage of men. Conditions in prisons are generally better. I think probably people should look at how this has happened elsewhere and maybe that will suggest ways to make it happen here.
When it comes to this fuzzier issue of expectations society has of men I think it may be hard to work directly towards the goal. I suspect that increased acceptance of gay and trans men is helpful - this necessarily involves partially breaking down common ideas about what it is to be a man, and if a man's group of friends includes a gay or trans guy or a woman a lot of the ways that norms of masculinity currently get enforced become a lot more awkward. IME, norms of masculinity are largely about men policing other men, and I think this is backed up by how a lot of men feel that they can be much closer friends with women. "More feminism" gets suggested a lot as the solution here, but I think that's basically right. We need certain characteristics to not be seen as distinctly masculine (or distinctly non-masculine). And I think things are getting better here; my experience is that people my age are a lot better about this stuff than my parents' generation is. "Bromance" is a word now. Scrubs happened.
Send your thanks to Rush Limbaugh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminazi
Well men's magazines actually do have those sorts of articles in them, but more to the point have you actually read any of those articles and thought, "wow that really would turn me on!"
Protip: those articles are drivel and those magazines are largely drivel.
Source: used to work at the largest publisher of some of the most famous brands.
Another closeted feminist I see.
T.M. MacReady
NO ONE DENIES MEMBER
Curious, a lot of people mention that feminists advocate for the actual rights men are struggling with (parental custody,rape, viewed as a predator without reason etc). Can anyone post some real world (i.e. not internet posts) examples of a protest, meeting, demonstration, etc in which a feminist group is advocating for the real issues men face? I see this mentioned often that Feminism covers all the same issues men face, but always as a one off comment to dismiss someone. It could help a lot of misguided people to see some real world examples of this.
Speaking purely from a logical standpoint, giving so much attention to the hateful bullshit so many 14 year old idiots post on reddit and other forums is like saying the primary feminists are the tumblr crazies, we're not being constructive by shining a spotlight on them.
And even if people are posting immature or sexist bullshit (and I know, they are) Gaf could really benefit from not lowering the bar to insult and demean these people. Being wrong doesn't mean its cool to be a dick about it. Lots of that in here and its not helping anything, just making the whole discussion seem more petty and less constructive.
Speaking purely from a logical standpoint, giving so much attention to the hateful bullshit so many 14 year old idiots post on reddit and other forums is like saying the primary feminists are the tumblr crazies, we're not being constructive by shining a spotlight on them.
And even if people are posting immature or sexist bullshit (and I know, they are) Gaf could really benefit from not lowering the bar to insult and demean these people. Being wrong doesn't mean its cool to be a dick about it. Lots of that in here and its not helping anything, just making the whole discussion seem more petty and less constructive.
The approaches are different, both are problematic in their own ways, and neither hold the holy grail to human-to-human interaction and intimacy. Both are marketing schemes.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
I know he's banned, but that was quick.
They are doing that. That's what "MRM" really is, albeit the next gen of it.
"10 negs to turn her on." "7 witty ways to deflate her ego." "5 de-qualifiers to make her crazy"
Now, I assume, you see what's wrong.
Your more tame sites like Ask Men etc. do the "fashion" thing (more similar to your female mags) but it is less likely to get you laid than the former, thus the same audience is gravitating towards the former. This is not because the former has any real understanding of relationships or love, it's because the former requires at least some microscopic level of human empathy to properly utilise (you need to "know a woman's feelings" so you can then manipulate them, after all) which slightly, ever so slightly elevates it from being completely shallow and inhuman. To say these MRM-tactics men "objectify" women isn't necessarily accurate. For a male who's focussed, so far, entirely on superficial shit like appearance, the MRM stuff actually feels like an upgrade, something more personal and humanly insightful, which is sad.
r.e. Their philosophy - What these "MRM" movements really are about is getting laid and that's it. Their authors do spout anti-feminist stuff to go along with their fundamental premise but the audience, I'm guessing, skips over reading that stuff most of the time. They sure never strike me as very invested in what they're arguing, otherwise they would care more about proving themselves right against the arguments that get thrown at them (which are demolishing.) I think it's possible that the audience for these things could be less anti-feminists and more people who simply don't want a monogamous relationship. I've met a monster who is undeniably godly at getting laid using techniques found on a MRM blog called chateau heartiste (keep in mind he thinks the MRM sites mentioned in Cracked are wrong/don't cut it, and Heartiste itself does criticize a lot of other MRM sites) When you ask this particular "test subject" I guess you could say about feminism, his philosophical arguing falls apart as soon as he opens his mouth, but that's not really the point anyway, the point is that he's getting laid and is using as little human empathy required. More honest MRM sites admit this.
From what I've seen, these tactics do work if you are genuinely an insightful sociopath who uses your insight for human anxieties basically for manipulation and, well, evil. The dude I met could probably become a good psychiatrist if he weren't evil. If you're a normal lonely guy merely "acting" or "portraying" as a (what they call an "Alpha" but is really a roaming sociopath) then it won't cut it. As much as I hate MRM sites and consider them basically demonic, it irks me when people assume they never work. During the fallout of the recent massacre, too many bloggers said that the killers' sexual frustration was proof that the MRM "pick-up" tactics don't work. The first step to undermining our enemy, as it were, is not misunderstanding it. Where there's smoke, there's fire.
There's also relevant questions as to what kind of female is most likely to respond positively to the sociopath's manipulations, but I feel this gets overly generalised. People too often don't like to admit their vulnerabilities, and sociopaths use that
- Status