[R] - Actionable?

[West Leas Oros 2]

Yeah, but I’d hardly consider the ENTIRE movement to be bad. I mean, you’d disagree if I’d said that about feminism. I’m afraid broad generalizations are a two way street. If you don’t want people to generalize, don’t do it yourself.

That's not how it works.

Men's rights is inescapably a reactionary position. Feminism can potentially be reactionary, liberal, separatist, etc. The divisions within the MRA movement represent conflicts within bourgeois ideology; nothing about the MRA movement challenges the material relations between genders or classes as they exist in our society. The premise remains the same for MRAs: men are actually the oppressed gender in society, a patently absurd axiom. The divisions within feminism represent differing interests between bourgeois liberal feminists and working-class feminists, along with methodological disagreements. Some segments of the feminist movement actually aim at changing the material relations between genders and classes, while others don't.

MRAs are more ideologically concentrated than feminists. Put simply, MRAs are a necessarily right-wing position, while feminism can stretch from even moderate right wingers all the way to very far-left positions. We can generalize MRAs because they share core principles. Feminists do not, across the board, share core principles.

Seems like “all x are y” to me. Not sure though.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Not seeing what you're referring to.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Not seeing what you're referring to.

Saying All MRAs are Reactionary

Yeah, but I’d hardly consider the ENTIRE movement to be bad. I mean, you’d disagree if I’d said that about feminism. I’m afraid broad generalizations are a two way street. If you don’t want people to generalize, don’t do it yourself.

That's not how it works.

Men's rights is inescapably a reactionary position. Feminism can potentially be reactionary, liberal, separatist, etc. The divisions within the MRA movement represent conflicts within bourgeois ideology; nothing about the MRA movement challenges the material relations between genders or classes as they exist in our society. The premise remains the same for MRAs: men are actually the oppressed gender in society, a patently absurd axiom. The divisions within feminism represent differing interests between bourgeois liberal feminists and working-class feminists, along with methodological disagreements. Some segments of the feminist movement actually aim at changing the material relations between genders and classes, while others don't.

MRAs are more ideologically concentrated than feminists. Put simply, MRAs are a necessarily right-wing position, while feminism can stretch from even moderate right wingers all the way to very far-left positions. We can generalize MRAs because they share core principles. Feminists do not, across the board, share core principles.

This is basically calling every MRA a reactionary and hateful. It is a blanket statement at best

[Mallorea and Riva]

Not seeing what you're referring to.

Saying All MRAs are Reactionary

That's not how it works.

Men's rights is inescapably a reactionary position. Feminism can potentially be reactionary, liberal, separatist, etc. The divisions within the MRA movement represent conflicts within bourgeois ideology; nothing about the MRA movement challenges the material relations between genders or classes as they exist in our society. The premise remains the same for MRAs: men are actually the oppressed gender in society, a patently absurd axiom. The divisions within feminism represent differing interests between bourgeois liberal feminists and working-class feminists, along with methodological disagreements. Some segments of the feminist movement actually aim at changing the material relations between genders and classes, while others don't.

MRAs are more ideologically concentrated than feminists. Put simply, MRAs are a necessarily right-wing position, while feminism can stretch from even moderate right wingers all the way to very far-left positions. We can generalize MRAs because they share core principles. Feminists do not, across the board, share core principles.

This is basically calling every MRA a reactionary and hateful. It is a blanket statement at best

It's a blanket statement sure, but I don't see the term hateful anywhere in there. I see the term reactionary, which doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Saying All MRAs are Reactionary

This is basically calling every MRA a reactionary and hateful. It is a blanket statement at best

It's a blanket statement sure, but I don't see the term hateful anywhere in there. I see the term reactionary, which doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

They go on to say it’s “petit bourgeois self entitlement”

If we’re going to use it based on the wording, it simply means advocating for the rights of men. ... What proof do you have that LITERALLY ALL MRAs share core values.

They share a core principle in their analysis, and it is taken as an axiom: that men actually need a rights movement. It's that bullshit assumption that colors the entire movement with the stain of petit-bourgeois entitlement.

[Mallorea and Riva]

It's a blanket statement sure, but I don't see the term hateful anywhere in there. I see the term reactionary, which doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

They go on to say it’s “petit bourgeois self entitlement”

They share a core principle in their analysis, and it is taken as an axiom: that men actually need a rights movement. It's that bullshit assumption that colors the entire movement with the stain of petit-bourgeois entitlement.

It's a criticism of the set of political beliefs, I'm not seeing any of it as actionable.

[West Leas Oros 2]

They go on to say it’s “petit bourgeois self entitlement”

It's a criticism of the set of political beliefs, I'm not seeing any of it as actionable.

Ok then. I just saw it as being a generalization meant to be disparaging. Guess not. Thanks!

[The Official United Nations]

It is akin to a disparaging generalisation. It's not that far-fetched a concern.

However, 'reactionary' is an often nebulous word which is in some cases used loosely. As such, it's unlikely to be seen as a clear offence by itself. The mention of definitive economic categories does seem to come out of nowhere given that MRA isn't clearly an economic position whether 'reactionary' or not, so it's understandable that you're uncertain about the overall thrust. Nonetheless, saying 'MRA is reactionary' could mean any variety of things, and so what offensive generalisation is being made might be vague.

They also mention

bourgeois liberal feminists

in a similar vein.

Edit: Having checked the forum, this post might not have been necessary at this point. I briefly confused it for the technical forum. I mostly meant to agree on reactionary not being a clearly troubling term, which was implied.