Rape and Death Threats: What MRAs Really Look Like

[The Steel Magnolia]

Words don't have influence and power. Insults and denigrations and prejudice are not important?

Being denied your intrinsic sense of self and humanity is somehow meaningless?

Your skin may be so deep you reflect all that comes towards, good and ill alike.

The rest of us are not quite so "lucky."

It isn't prejudice to regard those who believe foolish things as fools.
I could meet a homosexual and the only thing I know about them is that they fuck men. If they then go on to say they are PROUD of being a homosexual, it isn't PREJUDICIAL to take that remark and judge it. It's judicial.

Insults are not important. You are right. Not unless you care about the opinion of the person issueing them, in which case the proper response is to question why they issued the insult. Maybe you really are being a fool.

Noone is denying your sense of self to you. They are saying you are basing your sense of self on silly things.

It isn't luck. It's effort. Anyone can train themselves to not give a shit.

I was not talking about your baseless scorn.

[Gideus]

She is being shameful to her movement. At the same time, anyone who cherry-picks events done by feminists or radical feminist beliefs is being shameful to themselves or their own movement.

how about people who cherry pick examples of MRA like the OP did? Is it not exactly the same case? The reality is that MRA started on sites that were plagued by a lot of trolls and people of much less politically correct ideologies who decided to take things too far, some out of ignorance, some because they thought it would be funny to troll both movements (MRA and Feminists) at the same time.

The OP didn't cherry pick. The article quoted did. Now, the title is very cherry-picking, but the actual post is not.

HOWEVER

AS I SAID ANYONE WHO CHERRY PICKS ANYTHING OF THE "OPPOSING MOVEMENT" (and I don't fucking think the movements are opposing.) IS SHAMING THEMSELVES AND THEIR MOVEMENTS. A man, a woman, anyone.

[Gideus]

I broadly agree with everything you said. I don't see making our differences meaningless as a good thing, as Ostro does, but besides that I can agree with all of what you said.

Agreement?
On the Internet?
In a thread about Men's Rights Associations?
That's three horsemen. One more and there goes the world.

I think there might be an abortion thread out there... I know it's a dead horse, but could that count?

[Ostroeuropa]

It isn't prejudice to regard those who believe foolish things as fools.
I could meet a homosexual and the only thing I know about them is that they fuck men. If they then go on to say they are PROUD of being a homosexual, it isn't PREJUDICIAL to take that remark and judge it. It's judicial.

Insults are not important. You are right. Not unless you care about the opinion of the person issueing them, in which case the proper response is to question why they issued the insult. Maybe you really are being a fool.

Noone is denying your sense of self to you. They are saying you are basing your sense of self on silly things.

It isn't luck. It's effort. Anyone can train themselves to not give a shit.

I was not talking about your baseless scorn.

Sorry then. What were you talking about.

[The Steel Magnolia]

I was not talking about your baseless scorn.

Sorry then. What were you talking about.

Insults and prejudice and discrimination based off of social group.

[Ostroeuropa]

Sorry then. What were you talking about.

Insults and prejudice and discrimination based off of social group.

Granfalloons are granfalloons. I don't see any difference between the coin toss result and race.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Insults and prejudice and discrimination based off of social group.

Granfalloons are granfalloons. I don't see any difference between the coin toss result and race.

No one is killed because of a coin toss result being part of their identity.

[Ostroeuropa]

Granfalloons are granfalloons. I don't see any difference between the coin toss result and race.

No one is killed because of a coin toss result.

Because nobody has turned it into a Granfalloon.

EDIT:
Ok. nice edit. But i'm not THAT pedantic.

No one is killed because of a coin toss result being part of their identity.

A hypothetical world where people gave a massive shit about coin toss results is no different than one where they care about race.

[Hannibaelica]

MRAs and Feminists both claim to be fighting for gender equality. The problem is, many people perceive feminists to focus only on female issues and to belittle males. The only reason MRAs even exist is because of the belief that feminists are only fighting for female rights and totally ignore male problems, which although false, is understandable due to the name "feminist" and the [very vocal] people who do in fact think that it's impossible for males to be discriminated against.

What we need is not a feminist movement and an MRA movement, we need a single Gender Egalitarian movement that focuses on fighting double standards and discrimination against all genders, including ones that are neither male or female. After all, interests of all genders often go hand in hand. The more we increase women's rights, the less prevalent harmful stereotypes of men being rapists at heart that are complete slaves to their sexual desires will be. No genders deserve special treatment. Once people begin to start viewing people simply as other people, rather than a member of a specific gender who therefore must be treated a specific way, these issues of gender discrimination will begin to disappear naturally. Fight the root of the problems, not the symptoms.

(And yes, I realize that this is what feminism is supposed to be all about, but sadly this is not widely understood, which is why I believe the movement needs to be restructured)

[Gideus]

MRAs and Feminists both claim to be fighting for gender equality. The problem is, many people perceive feminists to focus only on female issues and to belittle males. The only reason MRAs even exist is because of the belief that feminists are only fighting for female rights and totally ignore male problems, which although false, is understandable due to the name "feminist" and the [very vocal] people who do in fact think that it's impossible for males to be discriminated against.

What we need is not a feminist movement and an MRA movement, we need a single Gender Egalitarian movement that focuses on fighting double standards and discrimination against all genders, including ones that are neither male or female. After all, interests of all genders often go hand in hand. The more we increase women's rights, the less prevalent harmful stereotypes of men being rapists at heart that are complete slaves to their sexual desires will be. No genders deserve special treatment. Once people begin to start viewing people simply as other people, rather than a member of a specific gender who therefore must be treated a specific way, these issues of gender discrimination will begin to disappear naturally. Fight the root of the problems, not the symptoms.

(And yes, I realize that this is what feminism is supposed to be all about, but sadly this is not widely understood, which is why I believe the movement needs to be restructured)

This is exactly what I believe.

[The Steel Magnolia]

MRAs and Feminists both claim to be fighting for gender equality. The problem is, many people perceive feminists to focus only on female issues and to belittle males. The only reason MRAs even exist is because of the belief that feminists are only fighting for female rights and totally ignore male problems, which although false, is understandable due to the name "feminist" and the [very vocal] people who do in fact think that it's impossible for males to be discriminated against.

What we need is not a feminist movement and an MRA movement, we need a single Gender Egalitarian movement that focuses on fighting double standards and discrimination against all genders, including ones that are neither male or female. After all, interests of all genders often go hand in hand. The more we increase women's rights, the less prevalent harmful stereotypes of men being rapists at heart that are complete slaves to their sexual desires will be. No genders deserve special treatment. Once people begin to start viewing people simply as other people, rather than a member of a specific gender who therefore must be treated a specific way, these issues of gender discrimination will begin to disappear naturally. Fight the root of the problems, not the symptoms.

(And yes, I realize that this is what feminism is supposed to be all about, but sadly this is not widely understood, which is why I believe the movement needs to be restructured)

Except of course, that pretending different social groups face equal levels of adversity is anti-egalitarian.

Equality doesn't mean treating everyone the same.

[Nuevo Tierra de Encanto]

MRAs and Feminists both claim to be fighting for gender equality. The problem is, many people perceive feminists to focus only on female issues and to belittle males. The only reason MRAs even exist is because of the belief that feminists are only fighting for female rights and totally ignore male problems, which although false, is understandable due to the name "feminist" and the [very vocal] people who do in fact think that it's impossible for males to be discriminated against.

What we need is not a feminist movement and an MRA movement, we need a single Gender Egalitarian movement that focuses on fighting double standards and discrimination against all genders, including ones that are neither male or female. After all, interests of all genders often go hand in hand. The more we increase women's rights, the less prevalent harmful stereotypes of men being rapists at heart that are complete slaves to their sexual desires will be. No genders deserve special treatment. Once people begin to start viewing people simply as other people, rather than a member of a specific gender who therefore must be treated a specific way, these issues of gender discrimination will begin to disappear naturally. Fight the root of the problems, not the symptoms.

(And yes, I realize that this is what feminism is supposed to be all about, but sadly this is not widely understood, which is why I believe the movement needs to be restructured)

See, the thing is that feminists like myself distrust the very idea of such a movement. I mean, nearly everyone I've known to have advocated for "equalism" or was against "feminism" has been a misogynist in my experience. Any such movement would need to prove it's really for equality, and not just what some butthurt dudebros think is equality.

[Gideus]

MRAs and Feminists both claim to be fighting for gender equality. The problem is, many people perceive feminists to focus only on female issues and to belittle males. The only reason MRAs even exist is because of the belief that feminists are only fighting for female rights and totally ignore male problems, which although false, is understandable due to the name "feminist" and the [very vocal] people who do in fact think that it's impossible for males to be discriminated against.

What we need is not a feminist movement and an MRA movement, we need a single Gender Egalitarian movement that focuses on fighting double standards and discrimination against all genders, including ones that are neither male or female. After all, interests of all genders often go hand in hand. The more we increase women's rights, the less prevalent harmful stereotypes of men being rapists at heart that are complete slaves to their sexual desires will be. No genders deserve special treatment. Once people begin to start viewing people simply as other people, rather than a member of a specific gender who therefore must be treated a specific way, these issues of gender discrimination will begin to disappear naturally. Fight the root of the problems, not the symptoms.

(And yes, I realize that this is what feminism is supposed to be all about, but sadly this is not widely understood, which is why I believe the movement needs to be restructured)

Except of course, that pretending different social groups face equal levels of adversity is anti-egalitarian.

Equality doesn't mean treating everyone the same.

Yes it fucking does.

It means removing the things that make them unequal. He never said anything about treating them as if they faced equal levels.

[Gideus]

MRAs and Feminists both claim to be fighting for gender equality. The problem is, many people perceive feminists to focus only on female issues and to belittle males. The only reason MRAs even exist is because of the belief that feminists are only fighting for female rights and totally ignore male problems, which although false, is understandable due to the name "feminist" and the [very vocal] people who do in fact think that it's impossible for males to be discriminated against.

What we need is not a feminist movement and an MRA movement, we need a single Gender Egalitarian movement that focuses on fighting double standards and discrimination against all genders, including ones that are neither male or female. After all, interests of all genders often go hand in hand. The more we increase women's rights, the less prevalent harmful stereotypes of men being rapists at heart that are complete slaves to their sexual desires will be. No genders deserve special treatment. Once people begin to start viewing people simply as other people, rather than a member of a specific gender who therefore must be treated a specific way, these issues of gender discrimination will begin to disappear naturally. Fight the root of the problems, not the symptoms.

(And yes, I realize that this is what feminism is supposed to be all about, but sadly this is not widely understood, which is why I believe the movement needs to be restructured)

See, the thing is that feminists like myself distrust the very idea of such a movement. I mean, nearly everyone I've known to have advocated for "equalism" or was against "feminism" has been a misogynist in my experience. Any such movement would need to prove it's really for equality, and not just what some butthurt dudebros think is equality.

At the same time, the feminist movement is - quite poorly - represented by a vocal minority of misandrists who promote ideas that are just as bad as many of the mysogynist ideas.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Except formalistic equality is not and more importantly never has been even remotely synonymous with substantive equity.

The SCC talks about this in wonderful detail, if you care to look at some of the older cases.

[Gideus]

Except formalistic equality is not and more importantly never has been even remotely synonymous with substantive equity.

The SCC talks about this in wonderful detail, if you care to look at some of the older cases.

I didn't realize we were distinguishing between types of equality.

When I talk about equality, I refer to full equality under the law, within the execution of said law, and within society itself. To me, that is what true equality is, and what the feminist movement's members should all be advocating for - and what an ideal egalitarian movement would advocate for.

[Nuevo Tierra de Encanto]

Except formalistic equality is not and more importantly never has been even remotely synonymous with substantive equity.

The SCC talks about this in wonderful detail, if you care to look at some of the older cases.

^^

See, the thing is that feminists like myself distrust the very idea of such a movement. I mean, nearly everyone I've known to have advocated for "equalism" or was against "feminism" has been a misogynist in my experience. Any such movement would need to prove it's really for equality, and not just what some butthurt dudebros think is equality.

At the same time, the feminist movement is - quite poorly - represented by a vocal minority of misandrists who promote ideas that are just as bad as many of the mysogynist ideas.

Does this mean that the movement needs to be renamed? Or altogether restarted so it can be more accommodating of men? No. I think feminism has a PR problem, essentially and that it needs to distance itself, as a movement, from certain unsavoury elements. That's it.

Except formalistic equality is not and more importantly never has been even remotely synonymous with substantive equity.

The SCC talks about this in wonderful detail, if you care to look at some of the older cases.

I didn't realize we were distinguishing between types of equality.

When I talk about equality, I refer to full equality under the law, within the execution of said law, and within society itself. To me, that is what true equality is, and what the feminist movement's members should all be advocating for - and what an ideal egalitarian movement would advocate for.

And that is what it calls for.

[Hannibaelica]

MRAs and Feminists both claim to be fighting for gender equality. The problem is, many people perceive feminists to focus only on female issues and to belittle males. The only reason MRAs even exist is because of the belief that feminists are only fighting for female rights and totally ignore male problems, which although false, is understandable due to the name "feminist" and the [very vocal] people who do in fact think that it's impossible for males to be discriminated against.

What we need is not a feminist movement and an MRA movement, we need a single Gender Egalitarian movement that focuses on fighting double standards and discrimination against all genders, including ones that are neither male or female. After all, interests of all genders often go hand in hand. The more we increase women's rights, the less prevalent harmful stereotypes of men being rapists at heart that are complete slaves to their sexual desires will be. No genders deserve special treatment. Once people begin to start viewing people simply as other people, rather than a member of a specific gender who therefore must be treated a specific way, these issues of gender discrimination will begin to disappear naturally. Fight the root of the problems, not the symptoms.

(And yes, I realize that this is what feminism is supposed to be all about, but sadly this is not widely understood, which is why I believe the movement needs to be restructured)

See, the thing is that feminists like myself distrust the very idea of such a movement. I mean, nearly everyone I've known to have advocated for "equalism" or was against "feminism" has been a misogynist in my experience. Any such movement would need to prove it's really for equality, and not just what some butthurt dudebros think is equality.

Yeah, I think this is far too idealist to actually occur, but I think the only way a movement like this could work is if it was rebranding of feminism itself. If it was a separate movement, then it would get flocked with butthurt male supremacists regardless of its original intentions. What would need to happen would be the feminists themselves creating such a movement in order to advertise that "Hey, all those harmful stereotypes about feminism are totally not true; we're actually all about equality for all genders." That way feminism would gain a lot of support and be able to accomplish a lot more in terms of promoting gender equality.

[Ostroeuropa]

See, the thing is that feminists like myself distrust the very idea of such a movement. I mean, nearly everyone I've known to have advocated for "equalism" or was against "feminism" has been a misogynist in my experience. Any such movement would need to prove it's really for equality, and not just what some butthurt dudebros think is equality.

Yeah, I think this is far too idealist to actually occur, but I think the only way a movement like this could work is if it was rebranding of feminism itself. If it was a separate movement, then it would get flocked with butthurt male supremacists regardless of its original intentions. What would need to happen would be the feminists themselves creating such a movement in order to advertise that "Hey, all those harmful stereotypes about feminism are totally not true; we're actually all about equality for all genders." That way feminism would gain a lot of support and be able to accomplish a lot more in terms of promoting gender equality.

Thats the gender abolitionist movement.
It's an offshoot of feminism.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Except formalistic equality is not and more importantly never has been even remotely synonymous with substantive equity.

The SCC talks about this in wonderful detail, if you care to look at some of the older cases.

I didn't realize we were distinguishing between types of equality.

When I talk about equality, I refer to full equality under the law, within the execution of said law, and within society itself. To me, that is what true equality is, and what the feminist movement's members should all be advocating for - and what an ideal egalitarian movement would advocate for.

Formalistic equality already exists, outdated terminology and abortion concerns aside.

Substantive equality? Not exactly.

It's the difference, effectively, between equality before the law and equality under the law.

Equality before the law simply means people are treated equally in the legal process.

Equality under the law refers to something more substantive.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Yeah, I think this is far too idealist to actually occur, but I think the only way a movement like this could work is if it was rebranding of feminism itself. If it was a separate movement, then it would get flocked with butthurt male supremacists regardless of its original intentions. What would need to happen would be the feminists themselves creating such a movement in order to advertise that "Hey, all those harmful stereotypes about feminism are totally not true; we're actually all about equality for all genders." That way feminism would gain a lot of support and be able to accomplish a lot more in terms of promoting gender equality.

Thats the gender abolitionist movement.
It's an offshoot of feminism.

Gender abolitionism is inherently discriminatory.

[Nuevo Tierra de Encanto]

I didn't realize we were distinguishing between types of equality.

When I talk about equality, I refer to full equality under the law, within the execution of said law, and within society itself. To me, that is what true equality is, and what the feminist movement's members should all be advocating for - and what an ideal egalitarian movement would advocate for.

Formalistic equality already exists, outdated terminology and abortion concerns aside.

Substantive equality? Not exactly.

It's the difference, effectively, between equality before the law and equality under the law.

Equality before the law simply means people are treated equally in the legal process.

Equality under the law refers to something more substantive.

Basically, woman are mostly "legally equal", but in practice they are nowhere close. Societal discrimination is a big deal. Rape culture is a big deal. Not arguing with you; this is basically a "this" sort of post.

[Hannibaelica]

Yeah, I think this is far too idealist to actually occur, but I think the only way a movement like this could work is if it was rebranding of feminism itself. If it was a separate movement, then it would get flocked with butthurt male supremacists regardless of its original intentions. What would need to happen would be the feminists themselves creating such a movement in order to advertise that "Hey, all those harmful stereotypes about feminism are totally not true; we're actually all about equality for all genders." That way feminism would gain a lot of support and be able to accomplish a lot more in terms of promoting gender equality.

Thats the gender abolitionist movement.
It's an offshoot of feminism.

There's a big difference between treating all genders equally and abolishing gender completely.

[Gideus]

See, the thing is that feminists like myself distrust the very idea of such a movement. I mean, nearly everyone I've known to have advocated for "equalism" or was against "feminism" has been a misogynist in my experience. Any such movement would need to prove it's really for equality, and not just what some butthurt dudebros think is equality.

Yeah, I think this is far too idealist to actually occur, but I think the only way a movement like this could work is if it was rebranding of feminism itself. If it was a separate movement, then it would get flocked with butthurt male supremacists regardless of its original intentions. What would need to happen would be the feminists themselves creating such a movement in order to advertise that "Hey, all those harmful stereotypes about feminism are totally not true; we're actually all about equality for all genders." That way feminism would gain a lot of support and be able to accomplish a lot more in terms of promoting gender equality.

Also, indirectly going to reference your other quote.

The feminist movement IS in need of new PR, but also new leadership. Many of - not just the most vocal, mind you - but most popular or most (in?)famous feminists are ardently misandrist. Why, just last summer, when questioning why a particular group (rather large) on Facebook as to why they hated "cisgendered white males" like myself, despite our support of equality, the response was that it was because people like me perpetuate rape and gender stereotypes just by existing. This is a startlingly, worryingly, and surprisingly increasingly believed idea within the feminist movement. The stereotypes about feminism are becoming more and more true because those within the movement are believing them more and more. I don't consider those people true feminists, but the feminist movement is not something that is centrally organized, and as such they cannot control who "is" and "isn't" a feminist. Therefore, these "radical feminists" are able to be considered feminists and poison the movement.

I believe a newer movement is needed to be promoted - perhaps centralized around a specific organization - which is centrally organized and run by a sort of representative council which actively prunes itself of people like radical feminists and the misogynists within the MRA movements who would join. This would have the effect of, not only being more organized and therefore able to execute its goals more effectively, but also having the movement be as unbiased as possible.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Yeah, I think this is far too idealist to actually occur, but I think the only way a movement like this could work is if it was rebranding of feminism itself. If it was a separate movement, then it would get flocked with butthurt male supremacists regardless of its original intentions. What would need to happen would be the feminists themselves creating such a movement in order to advertise that "Hey, all those harmful stereotypes about feminism are totally not true; we're actually all about equality for all genders." That way feminism would gain a lot of support and be able to accomplish a lot more in terms of promoting gender equality.

Also, indirectly going to reference your other quote.

The feminist movement IS in need of new PR, but also new leadership. Many of - not just the most vocal, mind you - but most popular or most (in?)famous feminists are ardently misandrist. Why, just last summer, when questioning why a particular group (rather large) on Facebook as to why they hated "cisgendered white males" like myself, despite our support of equality, the response was that it was because people like me perpetuate rape and gender stereotypes just by existing. This is a startlingly, worryingly, and surprisingly increasingly believed idea within the feminist movement. The stereotypes about feminism are becoming more and more true because those within the movement are believing them more and more. I don't consider those people true feminists, but the feminist movement is not something that is centrally organized, and as such they cannot control who "is" and "isn't" a feminist. Therefore, these "radical feminists" are able to be considered feminists and poison the movement.

I believe a newer movement is needed to be promoted - perhaps centralized around a specific organization - which is centrally organized and run by a sort of representative council which actively prunes itself of people like radical feminists and the misogynists within the MRA movements who would join. This would have the effect of, not only being more organized and therefore able to execute its goals more effectively, but also having the movement be as unbiased as possible.

Sauce that such tumblrisms, for lack of a better word, are increasingly believed within the mainstream feminist movement.