Is there a men's rights movement now afoot?

[Neo Art]

If you'll read back through the discussion that started this, it becomes clear that the question asked was about your reason for being here in response to a claim that discussion on an internet forum was worthless.

Questions I maintained, from the beginning, were utterly irrelevant to THIS topic. And while I entertained them to the extent I found entertaining, while not derailing the thread, at this point they HAVE become derailing.

You seem confused by the fact that there can exist a grey area between side conversation, and derailment, and how a topic can move from one to the other. It's a fairly simple concept though, when you put some thought into it.

And as it seems we've now past the point where "side topic" has now transitioned into "thread jack" we should move back to the topic at hand which, I'll remind you once more, doesn't have to do with me.

The fact that you insist on TRYING to CONTINUE to make it about me is, frankly, a bit disturbing. I'm just not that into you.

As other people wish to continue this conversation,

If you want to have a conversation about "why does Neo Art post on NSG", make a thread about that. I'll post in it if I feel like it.

let's say because it amuses us, to put our thinking on your train of thought, you object to us doing exactly what you claim the only reason you're here for.

If I gotta follow the rules, you gotta follow the rules.

None of which has anything to do with the thread topic. I'm not sure why this is so hard a thing to get your head around.

[Neo Art]

Sorta like "Fifty Shades of Grey: Really, this book is crap and you should be ashamed of yourself to be seen reading it in public. No, seriously, it's awful, and if you get through the first chapter and still consider this interesting literature you should be ashamed of yourself. I don't even mean the fact that the characters are shown in a positive light while displaying severe psychological issues which are for some bizarre reason shown as virtues. I mean the fact that it's edited like a 12th grader wrote it."

Yup, it's really all about the other half.

If you read it thinking "What does this say about the author" it does get suddenly interesting for a little while. It's how to make almost anything someone says or writes interesting, if you are into analyzing people.

Which I think is an interesting conversation but, again, not one really relevant to THIS topic.

[Ostroeuropa]

If you read it thinking "What does this say about the author" it does get suddenly interesting for a little while. It's how to make almost anything someone says or writes interesting, if you are into analyzing people.

Which I think is an interesting conversation but, again, not one really relevant to THIS topic.

Well my previous attempt to bring us back to the topic was ignored. We've descended into what occasionally happens where everyone screams "Lets get back to the topic" over and over again instead of actually getting back to the topic.
So here it is again.

Point taken, that is on topic.
Does a movement really have to "do" things to be called a movement?
At what point do you define something as being "done"?
Is there no peace movement in the united states, or does walking around constitute "doing" things?
I suppose it obviously constitutes movement in the literal sense, but as for the one in which you mean...
What about posters? isn't that just a form of discussion?
Can you point me to a tangible case of something being "done" in terms of gender equality from either side of this issue that doesn't fall within the realm of discussion?
(I'm genuinely curious.)

[Nadkor]

Okay? Then the people who enjoy doing it on 4chan can carry on doing it on 4chan, and the people who enjoy doing it here can carry on doing it here.

Not sure why you're struggling with this

My question is, why do it here and not 4chan? "The people doing it there are doing it there and the people doing it here are doing it here" speaks nothing as to why each group is arguing in a different area.

Because that's just the way it goes? Like, for everything.

I mean, seriously. This is not a big deal. You seem to be under an impression that arguing on NSG is a big deal and is really changing the world because if it wasn't you'd be just as well arguing on 4chan.

You probably would, yes.

[Neo Art]

So here it is again.

Point taken, that is on topic.
Does a movement really have to "do" things to be called a movement?
At what point do you define something as being "done"?
Is there no peace movement in the united states, or does walking around constitute "doing" things?
I suppose it obviously constitutes movement in the literal sense, but as for the one in which you mean...
What about posters? isn't that just a form of discussion?
Can you point me to a tangible case of something being "done" in terms of gender equality from either side of this issue that doesn't fall within the realm of discussion?
(I'm genuinely curious.)

I don't even think that "discussion" is inherently "not doing anything" it's just where that discussion takes place. "discussion" in the halls of congress, "discussion" in the supreme court, can lead to real change.

Discussion on an internet forum or web blog? Not so much. We're just not that special. And yes, I would say a movement has to do something beyond simply discussing amongst themselves to classify as more than just a discussion group. An activist group, by definition, has to have activity towards a goal. And I think the litmus test has to be, on some level, is this in any way likely to advance my cause?

[Conserative Morality]

Because that's just the way it goes? Like, for everything.

I mean, seriously. This is not a big deal. You seem to be under an impression that arguing on NSG is a big deal and is really changing the world because it it wasn't you'd be just as well arguing on 4chan.

You probably would, yes.

I specifically denied the bolded and detailed my reasons for why I think NSG is more than a waste of time. At no point have I claimed that it is 'a big deal' or that it's 'really changing the world'.

[Dyakovo]

At least he provided another stunning example of his privilege-blinders, eh? As if sexists need cover. You kidding me? Overt sexism does not need cover. It is POPULAR. It is mainstream. It is everywhere.

Dear Concerned Humanist-Not-Feminist-Who-Is-Just-Trying-To-Help,

I know you will encounter zillions of people who start their sentences with, "The feminists will totally kill me for this, but..." You will encounter tons of people who rant about the PC Police and their oppressive activities. The internet is full of brave rebels who bravely rebel against the newfangled popular trend of assuming that female people get full human status.

These people are douchecannoes.

Do not base your assessment of reality on what they have to say.

Do not become a tone troll and harp on feminists for "giving sexists cover" or for "chasing away men who might otherwise support them" or "being so shrill about it." Do not do this because we will point and laugh and pat you on your dear little head, because, darling, those sexists do not give one flying fuck how we treat them. No matter what tone we use or what words we choose or how willing we are to get down on our knees and blow them before we politely request a chance to speak, sir, they will treat us precisely the same way, which is like unpersons who are less-than.

We know this from experience. Of which you have none.

I also think that any person who actually trots out the "I'm a HUMANIST!" or "I'm an EGALITARIAN!" should be prompted to demonstrate what, exactly, they've done to further the rights of disenfranchised groups.

Because it seems to me that the 101st Fighting Keyboards have been recently outnumbered by the "intergalitarians". You know they type, those who inject themselves into any discussion about human rights with claims that they "don't care about things like race" or "don't really SEE gender" because they're such good people, with some smug self satisfaction you can practically envision them polishing a monacle.

I always kinda wonder "OK Mr. Humanist, what's your bonafides?" Because, call me crazy, but before you go around claimaint to be such an enlightened soul that you care about the plight of everyone everywhere all the time you might be able to pony up and show what, exactly, you've done to deserve to call yourself a human rights activist.

Because, much as the 101st Fighting Keyboards haven't quite learned that liking the military doesn't mean you served in the military, caring about causes does absolutely fuck all.

This would be part of the reason why I don't go around proclaiming myself to be a feminist despite considering myself to be one... While I agree with the cause, I've done sod all to actually support it.

[Conserative Morality]

Questions I maintained, from the beginning, were utterly irrelevant to THIS topic. And while I entertained them to the extent I found entertaining, while not derailing the thread, at this point they HAVE become derailing.

You seem confused by the fact that there can exist a grey area between side conversation, and derailment, and how a topic can move from one to the other. It's a fairly simple concept though, when you put some thought into it.

At what point does it become derailing? When you become bored with it?

And as it seems we've now past the point where "side topic" has now transitioned into "thread jack" we should move back to the topic at hand which, I'll remind you once more, doesn't have to do with me.

The fact that you insist on TRYING to CONTINUE to make it about me is, frankly, a bit disturbing. I'm just not that into you.

To put this on your level of thinking, I'm doing this because this particular conversation interests me, namely, the purpose of NSG, a conversation which you started, participated in, and are continuing.

I don't know why you think discussing the purpose of NSG is about you. Although you do seem to resort to "This conversation is not about me" a lot, even when at no point has the conversation revolved around you.

If you want to have a conversation about "why does Neo Art post on NSG", make a thread about that. I'll post in it if I feel like it.

That's not the question, and I'm not sure why you think that is the question.

If I gotta follow the rules, you gotta follow the rules.

None of which has anything to do with the thread topic. I'm not sure why this is so hard a thing to get your head around.

Perhaps because a conversation has been started and has continued for some time, and I don't think it should stop suddenly?

[Immoren]

Men's rights movement?

[Ostroeuropa]

So here it is again.

I don't even think that "discussion" is inherently "not doing anything" it's just where that discussion takes place. "discussion" in the halls of congress, "discussion" in the supreme court, can lead to real change.

Discussion on an internet forum or web blog? Not so much. We're just not that special. And yes, I would say a movement has to do something beyond simply discussing amongst themselves to classify as more than just a discussion group. An activist group, by definition, has to have activity towards a goal. And I think the litmus test has to be, on some level, is this in any way likely to advance my cause?

Alright then.
Is there a specific level of advancement required before you can say you are an advocate?
And, as a second question, do you think it advances a cause at all to discuss it with other people who don't agree with it?

[Gravlen]

One person supposedly saying something that might be construed as being sexist if you squint just right is the reason why there needs to be a men's rights movement?
I see my original statement was accurate...

I was talking about the change from feminism to gender egalitarianism as the term. The actual ideology held by intellectual feminists would not need to change.
However, it would mean that it becomes a lot harder for people to be misandrist, as well as eliminates the line of argument that
"Well you are just pro-women and sexist against men so why can't we be sexist against women!"

Instead, you'll just get the argument that "Equality has gone too far!"

[Gravlen]

I'm not going into all of your claims, just two points:

On the net balance, yes. Some feminists acknowledge it on paper, others fight vigorously against male victims taking funding and support destined for female victims, and a large coalition of feminist organizations backed an entirely new yet still horribly sexist definition of rape that excludes the vast majority of male victims and the vast majority of female perpetrators.

Some feminists have acknowledged that women are getting off light in the criminal justice system [notably, some first-wave feminists] but a number actually actively work against women receiving prison sentences at all.

Who are these feminists? Given that many feminists are leftists, and tend to support prison abolitionism of varying degrees, I have a hard time believing that any significant number of feminists think that women alone should get these benefits.

1. 2. 3. You tell me what kind of feminists these are, but you'll notice that they're only talking about women in prison as if prison is somehow a vile plot to keep women down.

Interesting that you're unable to provide sources to back up your claims since none of the ones you've provided show feminists "actively work against women receiving prison sentences at all".

Respectively:

The Taskforce acknowledges that there are some women whose offending is so serious that there is
no option but custody.

WIP has a vision of a fair and just criminal justice system where only those women who pose a threat to society are held in prison and that, where this is necessary, prisons are designed to meet the specific needs of women.

To reduce the numbers of women who are criminalized and imprisoned in Canada.

What's happened with being a nurse is that discrimination became illegal, men started breaking into the field against the resistance that was there, Scrubs hit the TV market, et cetera.

Did you ever watch Scrubs? You know, the show about doctors and female nurses? If you think the four episodes featuring the character of "murse" Paul Flowers (described as "somewhat feminine") inspired men / helped getting men into nursing...

[Trotskylvania]

I've linked to this before.

It also doesn't even remotely support your claim. In fact, it rather undermines it, and presents the pedophile scare as an attack on feminism.

Which, collectively, the movement does; some individual feminists do not, some individual feminists are busy making things worse.

Collectively, there is no Movement. There are a bunch of organizations still stuck in the second-wave tactics that exist pretty much only to fight against reactionary backlash. There is no broader feminist movement, especially not one of an ideological variety.

We are speaking of all men as a class here.

You are therefore saying that men as a class have little sympathy for feminism and mobilize to oppose feminism and feminist goals increasingly.

You are also asking why feminism should help men when men are discriminated against. The answer has already been given in this thread: Because feminism, theoretically, has a mandate to achieve gender equity.

If this is indeed the goal of the movement, then the movement has an obligation to work on such issues.

No, I'm asking why you think it's a good idea for feminists to abandon the siege mentality and lay the gates open while there are still dedicated reactionary crusades against women and feminism, and especially considering that a large portion of so-called mens rights activists are nothing but dime a dozen reactionaries.

What you are demanding is unreasonable. We can all get together and sign kumbaya and solve gender equity issues together when the reactionary impulse has been defeated. But unfortunately, you're not helping in this, by lionizing a cause that has so far almost exclusively been taken up by reactionaries.

Ms. Magazine. As cited therein, Feminist Majority Foundation, Ms. Magazine, and Women's Law Project all were working very directly to install that particular new definition, and the adoption of the new definition met with widespread approval among the movement.

Three organizations does not a movement make. Furthermore, if you'd bothered to read the article, the new definition was a massive improvement over the old definition. Furthermore, the new definition doesn't specify that the victim must be the penetratee. Under that definition, a it is just as much rape for a women to force a man into sexual intercourse as vice-versa.

The new definition was, in other words, drafted by feminist organizations, lobbied for by feminist organizations, and celebrated by feminist organizations, and yet, by that new definition, a man subjected to non-consensual vaginal sex remained "not a rape victim."

That is no where implied by the definition. Someone who is forced to penetrate is just as much a victim as someone who is forcibly penetrated.

1. 2. 3. You tell me what kind of feminists these are, but you'll notice that they're only talking about women in prison as if prison is somehow a vile plot to keep women down.

As noted above, your source doesn't in anyway resemble what you're claiming it says.

No, it doesn't. And that's where it becomes a gender issue.

So apparently, in your world "successful" people don't like having relationships with people with similar tastes, interests, etc.? So apparently, partners are only status objects when women do it to men. Trophy wives, and power couples just don't exist, amirite?

Confirmation bias.

Yes, and until you cite something other than self-report surveys, I will continue to doubt your premise, in defiance of everything I have ever seen or have seen studies of, that men are "slut-shamed" to anywhere near the degree that women are.

The feminist movement so argued; and then completely failed to do anything other than attempt to push women into high prestige "male" jobs, ignoring low prestige "male" jobs as well as all "female" jobs.

Liberal capitalists behave like liberal capitalists. Details at 11.

Men still get serious backlash when they attempt to step into a caring and nuturing role.

Women are considered "selfish" for not having children no more than men are considered "irresponsible" for not getting married.

I have not, actually, seen a woman criticized for being too aloof and distant to their children; and anyone caught shaming a woman for pursuing a career will get flamed heavily by feminists.

THat's because they are socially expected to not only be the breadwinner, but our social expectation of masculinity is stoicism, rationality, and strength. Only when men stopped being the masters of the universe, and patriarchy was seriously threatened did any alternative even become possible. You can thank feminism for that.

And in the real world, there aren't that many feminists, compared to NSG, or the college campus.

Check the last season's election returns. No, seriously.

Feminism is a powerful and organized political force, much like the gun lobby. Certainly more organized than religious conservatives these days, who are struggling over control of levers within the Republican party; and perhaps the strongest of the interest groups that the Democratic party relies on to mobilize voters, now that unions are pretty damn near dead.

I thought we had already established that not all organized advocacy for women is feminist. And if the mark of being a feminist is being a woman who is seriously threatened by the remarks and cultural posturing of Republican politicians, then the word has no coherent meaning anymore.

Just because feminists aren't marching in the streets doesn't mean that feminist organizations don't have a serious impact on the course of events. Feminists are part of the establishment now. Not all feminists are; but the feminist movement certainly is, now.

You still can't seem to draw the distinction between women and feminists. Just because women are part of the establishment doesn't mean feminists are.

[Phocidaea]

It's too disorganized to be a movement. There is a growing trend, yes, but I'm not sure if it's a movement.

And for the most part I agree. Men still dominate politics and business around the world, but the majority are facing increased opposition from unfair cultural standards of masculinity.

I will, however, opine that some MRAs are horribly misguided. Some are just misogynists in disguise, others focus on things like "intactivism" that are, honestly, non-issues.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

That assumes the "political and economic power" is shared, or even impacts, all or most members of that group.

No, it's just a simple fact that identity politics is only really possible when you are a marginalized group, who have the same broad community of interests.

Indeed, if you look at the issues trotted out by MRAs, they don't have particular salience among most males. That's because males are not a historically marginalized group; the issues that they raise are primarily ones of poverty, and directly related to patriarchal values.

Before I make a point, I'd like to clarify that I'm not defending MRAs. I know piss all about the actual movement, so I'll just take the general consesus' word for it that it's mostly populated by cunts.

What I don't understand is why this movement is necessarily illegitimate. If there are areas in which men as a group are arguably marginalised, then advocating for rights in those areas seems reasonable.

[LeftNightmare]

So, after controlling the West for centuries, things are reversing (sort of) and some don't like it. Okay.

[Trotskylvania]

No, it's just a simple fact that identity politics is only really possible when you are a marginalized group, who have the same broad community of interests.

Indeed, if you look at the issues trotted out by MRAs, they don't have particular salience among most males. That's because males are not a historically marginalized group; the issues that they raise are primarily ones of poverty, and directly related to patriarchal values.

Before I make a point, I'd like to clarify that I'm not defending MRAs. I know piss all about the actual movement, so I'll just take the general consesus' word for it that it's mostly populated by cunts.

What I don't understand is why this movement is necessarily illegitimate. If there are areas in which men as a group are arguably marginalised, then advocating for rights in those areas seems reasonable.

On this matter, neither am I. I am questioning whether their strategy will have any salience. It is an identity-politics movement, and one thing that all identity politics movements depend on is a feeling of communal solidarity that comes from being a marginalized group. A successful black businessman during the civil rights movement could feel organic, mutual solidarity with a poor, unemployed black teen living in an inner city ghetto because of the shared experience of racism.

Similar experiences formed the core of gay and lesbian groups as well as feminist groups. Without that shared experience of marginalization, you can't build a movement based on identity alone.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

Before I make a point, I'd like to clarify that I'm not defending MRAs. I know piss all about the actual movement, so I'll just take the general consesus' word for it that it's mostly populated by cunts.

What I don't understand is why this movement is necessarily illegitimate. If there are areas in which men as a group are arguably marginalised, then advocating for rights in those areas seems reasonable.

On this matter, neither am I. I am questioning whether their strategy will have any salience. It is an identity-politics movement, and one thing that all identity politics movements depend on is a feeling of communal solidarity that comes from being a marginalized group. A successful black businessman during the civil rights movement could feel organic, mutual solidarity with a poor, unemployed black teen living in an inner city ghetto because of the shared experience of racism.

Similar experiences formed the core of gay and lesbian groups as well as feminist groups. Without that shared experience of marginalization, you can't build a movement based on identity alone.

I think it's more a subset of the male identity. It's perhaps necessary, but not sufficient, to be male in order to identify with this movement. If you're a divorced father who feels that his custodial rights are unfair, the coming together other divorced fathers who feel similarly to advocate for their rights in this particular area could easily represent an identity-politics movement - the identity of divorced fathers.

The problem is perhaps more that they're trying to abstract and broaden a movement that is, at most, centred on a very specific set of (often unrelated) issues. And ones that by no means impact a sufficiently large amount of men to form such a broad political identity.

In short, I agree to an extent.

[Bottle]

I also think that any person who actually trots out the "I'm a HUMANIST!" or "I'm an EGALITARIAN!" should be prompted to demonstrate what, exactly, they've done to further the rights of disenfranchised groups.

Because it seems to me that the 101st Fighting Keyboards have been recently outnumbered by the "intergalitarians". You know they type, those who inject themselves into any discussion about human rights with claims that they "don't care about things like race" or "don't really SEE gender" because they're such good people, with some smug self satisfaction you can practically envision them polishing a monacle.

I always kinda wonder "OK Mr. Humanist, what's your bonafides?" Because, call me crazy, but before you go around claimaint to be such an enlightened soul that you care about the plight of everyone everywhere all the time you might be able to pony up and show what, exactly, you've done to deserve to call yourself a human rights activist.

Because, much as the 101st Fighting Keyboards haven't quite learned that liking the military doesn't mean you served in the military, caring about causes does absolutely fuck all.

This would be part of the reason why I don't go around proclaiming myself to be a feminist despite considering myself to be one... While I agree with the cause, I've done sod all to actually support it.

I don't think you need to be an activist in order to 'qualify' as a feminist. I was a feminist for years before I got involved with anything substantial. I'd imagine that at some point in the future I'll stop being involved in activism, but I can't imagine I'll stop being feminist until I'm dead.

It's not about whether or not you adopt a label like feminist or humanist, it's more about why and how you wield that label. Flouncing in to a discussion about feminism and proclaiming that you are an EQUAList is like if, in the midst of a discussion about racism, you loudly share that you don't even believe in race and that you've totally got a black best friend and he says it is cool for you to use the n-word.

[Seriong]

So, after controlling the West for centuries, things are reversing (sort of) and some don't like it. Okay.

So, have you talked to any MRA's or looked into any of the various websites of MRA's? At all?

[Bottle]

So, after controlling the West for centuries, things are reversing (sort of) and some don't like it. Okay.

So, have you talked to any MRA's or looked into any of the various websites of MRA's? At all?

Obviously not, or he'd have a far more negative opinion of MRAs.

[Tahar Joblis]

I'm not going into all of your claims, just two points:

Ones that you misunderstand.

Interesting that you're unable to provide sources to back up your claims since none of the ones you've provided show feminists "actively work against women receiving prison sentences at all".

Respectively:

The Taskforce acknowledges that there are some women whose offending is so serious that there is
no option but custody.

WIP has a vision of a fair and just criminal justice system where only those women who pose a threat to society are held in prison and that, where this is necessary, prisons are designed to meet the specific needs of women.

To reduce the numbers of women who are criminalized and imprisoned in Canada.

All of which are working against women receiving prison sentences at all, under circumstances in which men do indeed receive sentences. Hence, working to increase the sentencing gap between men and women.

Did you ever watch Scrubs? You know, the show about doctors and female nurses? If you think the four episodes featuring the character of "murse" Paul Flowers (described as "somewhat feminine") inspired men / helped getting men into nursing...

No. Instead, I asked a male nurse whether or not "Scrubs" had raised interest in men among becoming nurses. He said yes.

So I believe him.

Now, you might ask yourself a few words about why. Aside from the fact that it actually showed a male nurse on the screen [something not terribly common] ... The main character of the show is male, starts off as an intern, and is very much a slapstick character. He doesn't have the air of authority that we have come to expect from TV doctors, and is much more the sort of "everyman" personality that men have a lot easier of a time connecting with, and shows that it's ok - even cool - to be working down in the "lower echelons" of medicine. He also has a close, "equals" sort of relationship with a nurse; if anything, she's the senior established person showing the newbie [main character] around.

Medical dramas are generally marketed to women; this was a medical comedy. Make of that what you will.

[Blouman Empire]

1. Manliness- and no. Parenting is the job of the parent- if they want to change, then raise their own kids based upon their own vision, and hopes it spreads around. If a parent wants to raise a child under a certain concept of what it means to be 'Manly', then, by all means, let them teach vigour, strength, courage, etc. Then you go on to complain about the image that the media projects to the children, a certain type of Masculinity- manly excellence, virtus as the Latins would call it. It is the part of the parents to teach the children to differentiate between reality and television- Alain Delon's Character in Le Samourai shoots random people, and is so cool, and what not, the parent is the one who tells them, no! don't go about acting like that, you'll seem socially stunted and killing people is plain wrong.

Like it or not society which includes the media does shape children.

2. So, some airlines were arseholes- they are private companies, and you are paying them, if you don't like 'em, tough, withdraw your service, and move to a different company for your airline travel.

It's not right that the federal government stopped private companies from segregating or banning blacks is the exact same logic you are using here.

6. No, rape was subsumed into generalities, not between men and women. Despite what you think, the rape of a man by womankind tend to be extremely rare, low, and, while not condonable, certainly not a giant issue

The guy was probably asking for it too.

[CVT Temp]

So if some group focuses on the negative effects of our culture on the male sex, but this group is not opposed to feminists and is actually doing activism against the negative aspects of masculinity, would they be considered MRA or not? Is MRA just a description for the douchebag aspects or what? I'm confused.

[Blouman Empire]

I raised this with a feminist once, she said no feminism only concerns about women and why would it or should it worry about any instances where men are at a disadvantage.

And, of course, she was hooked up to the feminist hivemind and was thus speaking for all feminists and not just voicing her personal opinion...

I knew I should've placed a disclaimer here but I was thinking it would be more for the people whom haven't been around for a long time and know each other both on and off NSG.