MRA's: Fighting for Men or Fighting Against Women?

[Aurora Novus]

...not really. Plenty of MRAs don't take marching orders from AVfM. AVfM, at the end of the day, is just another MRA website. It may be one of the most popular, but I wouldn't agree at all that it is the "flag bearer" of the movement.

The MRM also isn't as large of a movement as Feminism, so the number of resources out there related to it are minimal and going to be more interocnnected than they are when it comes to Feminist websites.


What I would like to see is some evidence that the movement itself, on a reglar basis, espouses hateful anti-woman rhetoric. rhetoric that isn't comparable to anything Feminists do on a regular basis. Unless of course you're comfortable with me calling both groups hate movements, which I'm entirely fine with.

This article summarizes things quite nicely.

"I would rather not see these kinds of "gay, redpill, and proud" posts. Masculinity is in part defined by our attraction to the feminine. If your preference is to be a man-pleaser then you're not expressing any kind of masculinity that's worth celebrating."

By the time I got to this point in part 3, I was more than won over. Jesus fucking christ. I guess because I don't hang around these groups I was only ever exposed to their more intellectual sides. I never knew this kind of shit was going on in the deeper communities.

[Trotskylvania]

False equivalence, false equivalence everywhere.

...not really. Plenty of MRAs don't take marching orders from AVfM. AVfM, at the end of the day, is just another MRA website. It may be one of the most popular, but I wouldn't agree at all that it is the "flag bearer" of the movement.

The MRM also isn't as large of a movement as Feminism, so the number of resources out there related to it are minimal and going to be more interocnnected than they are when it comes to Feminist websites.


What I would like to see is some evidence that the movement itself, on a reglar basis, espouses hateful anti-woman rhetoric. rhetoric that isn't comparable to anything Feminists do on a regular basis. Unless of course you're comfortable with me calling both groups hate movements, which I'm entirely fine with.

You're form of apologism is that, in spite of AVFM being the ideological standardbearer of the MRA movement, and everyone in the movement being more than willing to get into bed with them, that it doesn't matter. That is frankly ridiculous.

There is outright misogny and support for violence against women hosted on AVFM. It's utterly pervasive through the movement, and their is outright hostility in every sector of the movement to the idea that women are in anyway disadvantaged, or towards any idea of female political organizations that might seek to help women and the problems they face in society.

You have offered nothing, not a single solitary shred of evidence of anything equivalent in the feminist movement. Have a fucking catalog of the bullshit routinely pulled by the Men's Rights Movement.

[Gauthier]

...not really. Plenty of MRAs don't take marching orders from AVfM. AVfM, at the end of the day, is just another MRA website. It may be one of the most popular, but I wouldn't agree at all that it is the "flag bearer" of the movement.

The MRM also isn't as large of a movement as Feminism, so the number of resources out there related to it are minimal and going to be more interocnnected than they are when it comes to Feminist websites.


What I would like to see is some evidence that the movement itself, on a reglar basis, espouses hateful anti-woman rhetoric. rhetoric that isn't comparable to anything Feminists do on a regular basis. Unless of course you're comfortable with me calling both groups hate movements, which I'm entirely fine with.

You're form of apologism is that, in spite of AVFM being the ideological standardbearer of the MRA movement, and everyone in the movement being more than willing to get into bed with them, that it doesn't matter. That is frankly ridiculous.

There is outright misogny and support for violence against women hosted on AVFM. It's utterly pervasive through the movement, and their is outright hostility in every sector of the movement to the idea that women are in anyway disadvantaged, or towards any idea of female political organizations that might seek to help women and the problems they face in society.

You have offered nothing, not a single solitary shred of evidence of anything equivalent in the feminist movement. Have a fucking catalog of the bullshit routinely pulled by the Men's Rights Movement.

Cracked just made him see the light.

[Constantinopolis]

MRA's are bad for men, as well as for women and everyone else. They complain about some real problems, but are laughably wrong about their causes.

Take child custody, for example. MRA's point out (correctly) that the mother is far more likely than the father to get custody of a child after divorce. Why does this happen? Because society generally believes that it is a woman's role to stay home and take care of the children - women are seen as nurturing and emotional while men are seen as strong and cold. And why does society believe this? Because of those traditional gender roles that feminists are fighting against. To complain about unequal custody practices is to complain about the exact same thing that feminists complain about (namely, gender roles). Yet somehow, MRA's do not realize this, and treat feminists as the enemy.

Of course, IMO, arguing about the intricacies of divorce-related laws and practices is like arguing about the arrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic, and smells of selfish entitlement. The real problem is the very high divorce rate itself. If you're more concerned about what happens upon divorce than about how to make a marriage last, you're doing it wrong.

[Aurora Novus]

You're form of apologism is that, in spite of AVFM being the ideological standardbearer of the MRA movement, and everyone in the movement being more than willing to get into bed with them, that it doesn't matter. That is frankly ridiculous.

No, what I was saying is that I reject the underlined to begin with.

You have offered nothing, not a single solitary shred of evidence of anything equivalent in the feminist movement. Have a fucking catalog of the bullshit routinely pulled by the Men's Rights Movement.

Because up until now you had provided me with nothing. You've no one to complain to but yourself.

[The Shrailleeni Empire]

It's true, from a certain point of view. That quote in context was meant to use shock value to highlight a societal point. But it has certainly been used by a variety of radical feminist bloggers who believe that literally. I've read rants by people who are against all sexual intercourse, or want all men to be exterminated. And these people are spouting vitriol and hate which, so far as I have read, is on an extreme and deplorable fringe of thinking.

The problem inherent in this is that for the anti-feminists, and for the MRA's, those extremists are the be-all-end-all of feminism. They're the easiest to hate, so therefore they must represent the movement as a whole. That is flawed thinking, and I won't have any part of it.

It's also the fact they're highly vocal that makes them easy to hate. If the more moderate feminists had the courage to confront the more radical ones on the irrational beliefs, the MRAs may have never sprouted up at all.

But why would they? That is to say, why would they confront them on their home turf? These radicals are loud because the vast majority of them are bloggers. Their message is easy to google. How many people read modern feminist literature? Or moderate feminist publications? How many people just flat ignore what are actually the loudest feminist issues, like stopping warfare and increasing health research and spending and ending oppressive programs and laws?

This is the age of the internet. Actual philosophies and positions are things that people don't want to spend the time to understand. It isn't the fault of the feminist mainstream that the most hateful and loud are stealing the spotlight, any more than it is the fault of, say, Republicans that their spotlight is stolen by Tea Partiers. Or the Islamic community by terrorists.

[Kelinfort]

Completely disagree, they do have some points on domestic abuse and courts preferential towards females in custody cases, but that's it. And besides, those cases are few and far between.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Unless of course you're comfortable with me calling both groups hate movements, which I'm entirely fine with.

To claim even radical feminism - of the kind that is not based around objective personal level hatred of XY- and [formerly+] penis-possessing people - opposes cisgender men as a group rather than masculine social power holders as a class is kind of *insert only slightly offensive low intelligence qualifier here*-ic, because it's on a borderline level of selective reading and ignorance.

I was about to source linky for the lack of support of MRAs on abortion, LGBT rights and others but I lost the pics.

[The Shrailleeni Empire]

MRA's are bad for men, as well as for women and everyone else. They complain about some real problems, but are laughably wrong about their causes.

Take child custody, for example. MRA's point out (correctly) that the mother is far more likely than the father to get custody of a child after divorce. Why does this happen? Because society generally believes that it is a woman's role to stay home and take care of the children - women are seen as nurturing and emotional while men are seen as strong and cold. And why does society believe this? Because of those traditional gender roles that feminists are fighting against. To complain about unequal custody practices is to complain about the exact same thing that feminists complain about (namely, gender roles). Yet somehow, MRA's do not realize this, and treat feminists as the enemy.

Of course, IMO, arguing about the intricacies of divorce-related laws and practices is like arguing about the arrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic, and smells of selfish entitlement. The real problem is the very high divorce rate itself. If you're more concerned about what happens upon divorce than about how to make a marriage last, you're doing it wrong.

I just wanted to applaud you on this.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Feminism (modern) - Just bad, and plain bitchy against men, not forgetting that it gets sidetracked by non important issues ignoring the ones that are important for women.

Well, I have to thank 2010s feminism for lots of good stuff that happened to me.

[The Serbian Empire]

This article summarizes things quite nicely.

"I would rather not see these kinds of "gay, redpill, and proud" posts. Masculinity is in part defined by our attraction to the feminine. If your preference is to be a man-pleaser then you're not expressing any kind of masculinity that's worth celebrating."

By the time I got to this point in part 3, I was more than won over. Jesus fucking christ. I guess because I don't hang around these groups I was only ever exposed to their more intellectual sides. I never knew this kind of shit was going on in the deeper communities.

It's the reason that I am uncomfortable with supporting anything more than some of the more intellectual arguments within the MRA movement at this time. The feminists are little better seeing the extremist rhetoric stirred up by Marilyn French back in 1977 that can't be put back into the bottle. Almost makes a more moderate course more reasonable at this time. I'm almost willing to eventually make a movement combining the best ideas from both ideologies, but neither will like my third position on gender policy.

[The Serbian Empire]

It's also the fact they're highly vocal that makes them easy to hate. If the more moderate feminists had the courage to confront the more radical ones on the irrational beliefs, the MRAs may have never sprouted up at all.

But why would they? That is to say, why would they confront them on their home turf? These radicals are loud because the vast majority of them are bloggers. Their message is easy to google. How many people read modern feminist literature? Or moderate feminist publications? How many people just flat ignore what are actually the loudest feminist issues, like stopping warfare and increasing health research and spending and ending oppressive programs and laws?

This is the age of the internet. Actual philosophies and positions are things that people don't want to spend the time to understand. It isn't the fault of the feminist mainstream that the most hateful and loud are stealing the spotlight, any more than it is the fault of, say, Republicans that their spotlight is stolen by Tea Partiers. Or the Islamic community by terrorists.

The problem is the more moderate positions don't fight back thus leaving the opponents such as MRAs, Democrats, and Islamophobes with a strong position to counter as the extremists are the only ones taking actions or so it seems.

[Aurora Novus]

"I would rather not see these kinds of "gay, redpill, and proud" posts. Masculinity is in part defined by our attraction to the feminine. If your preference is to be a man-pleaser then you're not expressing any kind of masculinity that's worth celebrating."

By the time I got to this point in part 3, I was more than won over. Jesus fucking christ. I guess because I don't hang around these groups I was only ever exposed to their more intellectual sides. I never knew this kind of shit was going on in the deeper communities.

It's the reason that I am uncomfortable with supporting anything more than some of the more intellectual arguments within the MRA movement at this time. The feminists are little better seeing the extremist rhetoric stirred up by Marilyn French back in 1977 that can't be put back into the bottle. Almost makes a more moderate course more reasonable at this time. I'm almost willing to eventually make a movement combining the best ideas from both ideologies, but neither will like my third position on gender policy.

What would that be?

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

It's the reason that I am uncomfortable with supporting anything more than some of the more intellectual arguments within the MRA movement at this time. The feminists are little better seeing the extremist rhetoric stirred up by Marilyn French back in 1977 that can't be put back into the bottle. Almost makes a more moderate course more reasonable at this time. I'm almost willing to eventually make a movement combining the best ideas from both ideologies, but neither will like my third position on gender policy.

As long as you don't say it is feminism without decisive female and/or non-binary opinions and contribution*, you also don't try to mansplain them/us issues that concern them/us - especially what we have the right to be offended at -, and don't commit general non-douchebaggery such as never gaslighting, I think you'll be pretty smooth.

You'd be better served at saying ideally cisgender men should be pro-feminist* though.

* Men claiming the title feminist for themselves is source of major controversy. Avoiding it is kinda good if you don't want to attract negative feminist attention.

[Trotskylvania]

"I would rather not see these kinds of "gay, redpill, and proud" posts. Masculinity is in part defined by our attraction to the feminine. If your preference is to be a man-pleaser then you're not expressing any kind of masculinity that's worth celebrating."

By the time I got to this point in part 3, I was more than won over. Jesus fucking christ. I guess because I don't hang around these groups I was only ever exposed to their more intellectual sides. I never knew this kind of shit was going on in the deeper communities.

It's the reason that I am uncomfortable with supporting anything more than some of the more intellectual arguments within the MRA movement at this time. The feminists are little better seeing the extremist rhetoric stirred up by Marilyn French back in 1977 that can't be put back into the bottle. Almost makes a more moderate course more reasonable at this time. I'm almost willing to eventually make a movement combining the best ideas from both ideologies, but neither will like my third position on gender policy.

That "third position" is in the feminist movement. The old feminist allied men's movement largely merged with the feminist movement, and that's why a lot of the strongest current feminist advocates are men, and feminists in general are no longer opposed to a unified movement.

[DrakoLand]

Also, it is bad for men. FFS, if you believe straight cisgender men are systemically, structurally oppressed, I dare you to fucking cross-dress and use social female or gender-neutral names and pronouns for a fucking month and say you had a positive overcome of your overall social situation before society at large.

Still sounds better than living in a world where I have to say "cis" so that I don't trigger some tumblr abomination

On Topic: Right now Feminism is made up of mentally challenged XX individuals who are driven nuts by not getting enough D vitamine and as every action has a reaction the MRA was born, made up of men who don't get enough juice

[The Shrailleeni Empire]

But why would they? That is to say, why would they confront them on their home turf? These radicals are loud because the vast majority of them are bloggers. Their message is easy to google. How many people read modern feminist literature? Or moderate feminist publications? How many people just flat ignore what are actually the loudest feminist issues, like stopping warfare and increasing health research and spending and ending oppressive programs and laws?

This is the age of the internet. Actual philosophies and positions are things that people don't want to spend the time to understand. It isn't the fault of the feminist mainstream that the most hateful and loud are stealing the spotlight, any more than it is the fault of, say, Republicans that their spotlight is stolen by Tea Partiers. Or the Islamic community by terrorists.

The problem is the more moderate positions don't fight back thus leaving the opponents such as MRAs, Democrats, and Islamophobes with a strong position to counter as the extremists are the only ones taking actions or so it seems.

I would argue that their efforts to fight back are simply less interesting to people.

[The Serbian Empire]

It's the reason that I am uncomfortable with supporting anything more than some of the more intellectual arguments within the MRA movement at this time. The feminists are little better seeing the extremist rhetoric stirred up by Marilyn French back in 1977 that can't be put back into the bottle. Almost makes a more moderate course more reasonable at this time. I'm almost willing to eventually make a movement combining the best ideas from both ideologies, but neither will like my third position on gender policy.

What would that be?

Egalitarianism... where the merit of a person's character means more than the gender of the people involved.

[Trotskylvania]

It's the reason that I am uncomfortable with supporting anything more than some of the more intellectual arguments within the MRA movement at this time. The feminists are little better seeing the extremist rhetoric stirred up by Marilyn French back in 1977 that can't be put back into the bottle. Almost makes a more moderate course more reasonable at this time. I'm almost willing to eventually make a movement combining the best ideas from both ideologies, but neither will like my third position on gender policy.

As long as you don't say it is feminism without decisive female and/or non-binary opinions and contribution*, you also don't try to mansplain them/us issues that concern them/us - especially what we have the right to be offended at -, and don't commit general non-douchebaggery such as never gaslighting, I think you'll be pretty smooth.

You'd be better served at saying ideally cisgender men should be pro-feminist* though.

* Men claiming the title feminist for themselves is source of major controversy. Avoiding it is kinda good if you don't want to attract negative feminist attention.

Maybe where you live. But in the US, self-proclaimed male feminists are largely accepted.

[Aurora Novus]

It's also the fact they're highly vocal that makes them easy to hate. If the more moderate feminists had the courage to confront the more radical ones on the irrational beliefs, the MRAs may have never sprouted up at all.

But why would they? That is to say, why would they confront them on their home turf? These radicals are loud because the vast majority of them are bloggers. Their message is easy to google. How many people read modern feminist literature? Or moderate feminist publications? How many people just flat ignore what are actually the loudest feminist issues, like stopping warfare and increasing health research and spending and ending oppressive programs and laws?

This is the age of the internet. Actual philosophies and positions are things that people don't want to spend the time to understand. It isn't the fault of the feminist mainstream that the most hateful and loud are stealing the spotlight, any more than it is the fault of, say, Republicans that their spotlight is stolen by Tea Partiers. Or the Islamic community by terrorists.

Well, actually, yeah. It kinda is their fault. People in groups need to police their own, or abandon those groups and make a new one centered upon their ideology. Otherwise you're seen as, at best, complicit through non-opposition. They need to get loud, and make their opposition widely known. Because if they don't, they might as well be supporting these more radical wings, from a practical viewpoint.

[The Serbian Empire]

It's the reason that I am uncomfortable with supporting anything more than some of the more intellectual arguments within the MRA movement at this time. The feminists are little better seeing the extremist rhetoric stirred up by Marilyn French back in 1977 that can't be put back into the bottle. Almost makes a more moderate course more reasonable at this time. I'm almost willing to eventually make a movement combining the best ideas from both ideologies, but neither will like my third position on gender policy.

That "third position" is in the feminist movement. The old feminist allied men's movement largely merged with the feminist movement, and that's why a lot of the strongest current feminist advocates are men, and feminists in general are no longer opposed to a unified movement.

I think it is not as the radical feminists seemingly speak for all. I want no part of their "All Men Are Rapists" schtick. They're the Communism (2nd position) in the battle.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

The problem is the more moderate positions don't fight back thus leaving the opponents such as MRAs, Democrats, and Islamophobes with a strong position to counter as the extremists are the only ones taking actions or so it seems.

Serby, stahp.

TERFs have little to no power to oppress men and boys who don't claim feminism, and they actively attack trans* people because they are perceived as such. "Dick-people invaders of women's spaces" and all that utter horseshit.

And yes, there is a war right now, it's just that you don't search enough.

[Aurora Novus]

It's the reason that I am uncomfortable with supporting anything more than some of the more intellectual arguments within the MRA movement at this time. The feminists are little better seeing the extremist rhetoric stirred up by Marilyn French back in 1977 that can't be put back into the bottle. Almost makes a more moderate course more reasonable at this time. I'm almost willing to eventually make a movement combining the best ideas from both ideologies, but neither will like my third position on gender policy.

That "third position" is in the feminist movement. The old feminist allied men's movement largely merged with the feminist movement, and that's why a lot of the strongest current feminist advocates are men, and feminists in general are no longer opposed to a unified movement.

No, that's still one of the two former positions. Feminism.

The third position would be something which approaches problem solving from a non-gendered standpoint. Feminism does not do that, even at it's best. Which is why, even at it's best, I will never support it.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Still sounds better than living in a world where I have to say "cis" so that I don't trigger some tumblr abomination

Meet the c1sg3nd3rs, the people who identify with the gender they were psychosocially assigned to at birth, but are not cisgender!

[The Shrailleeni Empire]

It's the reason that I am uncomfortable with supporting anything more than some of the more intellectual arguments within the MRA movement at this time. The feminists are little better seeing the extremist rhetoric stirred up by Marilyn French back in 1977 that can't be put back into the bottle. Almost makes a more moderate course more reasonable at this time. I'm almost willing to eventually make a movement combining the best ideas from both ideologies, but neither will like my third position on gender policy.

As long as you don't say it is feminism without decisive female and/or non-binary opinions and contribution*, you also don't try to mansplain them/us issues that concern them/us - especially what we have the right to be offended at -, and don't commit general non-douchebaggery such as never gaslighting, I think you'll be pretty smooth.

You'd be better served at saying ideally cisgender men should be pro-feminist* though.

* Men claiming the title feminist for themselves is source of major controversy. Avoiding it is kinda good if you don't want to attract negative feminist attention.

I am a cisgender male feminist, and I will never avoid the term. The only feminist movements worth their title will accept me on the basis of my philosophy and understanding.