The NS Mens Rights Thread

[Internationalist Bastard]

I don't know people perceive it for you, but people usually laugh. I was 11.

I'm sorry to hear that.
I havn't had it happen to me personally, but I perceive that people tend to laugh or deny it's possible yes.
I've had a similar experience with domestic violence.

Annoyingly, other than the mens rights movement, the only people to give any form of solidarity or solace were traditionalist conservatives who would simply tell me I should have beat the shit into her. The rest laugh. Or deny it's possible.
Some know about the issues, and that's always nice.

But it was the MRM that really gave me sympathy and helped me to open up about it.

While it's not rape, I think I can understand how you feel when it happens.
Do you get the guilt about not correcting them?
I try and correct them when I have the nerve, but a lot of the time it's difficult when you are very outnumbered.

Sorry to hear that man. No I usually don't say anything about it. I work with a lot of rape victims I don't think they wanna hear about it.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

I'm quite pleased to work on both on my side of the fence, thank you.

CAFE was an MRM club that was entirely moderate.
Feminists did not want to work with them.

If I founded an organization for mens rights, I expect it would be exactly the same.

You're missing the problem, really. Any explicitly MRM group will be opposed by feminists, and moderate ones will not support it. (Though they may also, not oppose.)
They think the solution to mens issues needs to come from within the feminist movement, and they will not yield on this point.
The fact that it's utterly fucking failed to materialize despite 100 years of waiting doesn't deter their ideological zeal.

Moderate Feminists want to work with us...
Within the feminist movement.

We consider that completely counter productive.

They are not willing to budge on this. So that's that.

Told you so.

I do not want to work with MRAs because I haven never met a single MRA that has not been a giant prick. The ones that consider themselves "moderate" are still assholes. That includes MRAs who identify as female. I am going to work on the inequalities all genders, sexes, orientations, etc. face, as a feminist.

[British Empire Strikes Back]

Well...

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm sorry to hear that.
I havn't had it happen to me personally, but I perceive that people tend to laugh or deny it's possible yes.
I've had a similar experience with domestic violence.

Annoyingly, other than the mens rights movement, the only people to give any form of solidarity or solace were traditionalist conservatives who would simply tell me I should have beat the shit into her. The rest laugh. Or deny it's possible.
Some know about the issues, and that's always nice.

But it was the MRM that really gave me sympathy and helped me to open up about it.

While it's not rape, I think I can understand how you feel when it happens.
Do you get the guilt about not correcting them?
I try and correct them when I have the nerve, but a lot of the time it's difficult when you are very outnumbered.

Sorry to hear that man. No I usually don't say anything about it. I work with a lot of rape victims I don't think they wanna hear about it.

Would that be women rape victims, or do you deal with both?

[Internationalist Bastard]

Sorry to hear that man. No I usually don't say anything about it. I work with a lot of rape victims I don't think they wanna hear about it.

Would that be women rape victims, or do you deal with both?

Women. I'm a UN Peacekeeper.

[The Rich Port]

While I would prefer that men's rights, as a non-issue as presented by MRAs, not be discussed, I get the feeling it won't be that simple, since it never is, so, I might as well say my piece.

Men face discrimination, but not from women. Rather, they face discrimination by the conservative patriarchy that has dominated politics for thousands of years. Within that conservative patriarchy lie every single issue that has affected both men and women for those same thousands of years: mental illness as weakness (as if willpower is all that it takes to overcome schizophrenia, for example), the denial of rape of men (because men can't be raped by women, they're physically stronger than women, etc.), excessive punishment (men do more damage to society, they commit more violent crimes, we need to be harsher on criminals, rehabilitation doesn't work), denial of parental rights (a classic, women are the nurturers, they're the ones that stay at home to raise children while men go out to work), and, in the military, the disposable nature of men, the physical superiority of men, the mental superiority of men, the viciousness inherent in men, all of which means they're the "Grunts" that die by the thousands in pointless conflicts to satisfy the same patriarchy of rich, white men, who have been passing around these older-than-dirt stereotypes since the beginning of civilization.

Absolutely the MRM is a reactionary movement, when the denial of the patriarchy and the equality of men and women is something that the Feminist movement has been fighting for and continues to fight for in the contemporary.

By denying that patriarchy, the Men's Rights Movement does more damage to malekind than anything "feminazis" do today.

[Internationalist Bastard]

While I would prefer that men's rights, as a non-issue as presented by MRAs, not be discussed, I get the feeling it won't be that simple, since it never is, so, I might as well say my piece.

Men face discrimination, but not from women. Rather, they face discrimination by the conservative patriarchy that has dominated politics for thousands of years. Within that conservative patriarchy lie every single issue that has affected both men and women for those same thousands of years: mental illness as weakness (as if willpower is all that it takes to overcome schizophrenia, for example), the denial of rape of men (because men can't be raped by women, they're physically stronger than women, etc.), excessive punishment (men do more damage to society, they commit more violent crimes, we need to be harsher on criminals, rehabilitation doesn't work), denial of parental rights (a classic, women are the nurturers, they're the ones that stay at home to raise children while men go out to work), and, in the military, the disposable nature of men, the physical superiority of men, the mental superiority of men, the viciousness inherent in men, all of which means they're the "Grunts" that die by the thousands in pointless conflicts to satisfy the same patriarchy of rich, white men, who have been passing around these older-than-dirt stereotypes since the beginning of civilization.

Absolutely the MRM is a reactionary movement, when the denial of the patriarchy and the equality of men and women is something that the Feminist movement has been fighting for and continues to fight for in the contemporary.

By denying that patriarchy, the Men's Rights Movement does more damage to malekind than anything "feminazis" do today.

I can agree with this

[Teemant]

I just hope that there won't be gender quotas. That seems like a discrimination.

[Ostroeuropa]

While I would prefer that men's rights, as a non-issue as presented by MRAs, not be discussed, I get the feeling it won't be that simple, since it never is, so, I might as well say my piece.

Men face discrimination, but not from women. Rather, they face discrimination by the conservative patriarchy that has dominated politics for thousands of years. Within that conservative patriarchy lie every single issue that has affected both men and women for those same thousands of years: mental illness as weakness (as if willpower is all that it takes to overcome schizophrenia, for example), the denial of rape of men (because men can't be raped by women, they're physically stronger than women, etc.), excessive punishment (men do more damage to society, they commit more violent crimes, we need to be harsher on criminals, rehabilitation doesn't work), denial of parental rights (a classic, women are the nurturers, they're the ones that stay at home to raise children while men go out to work), and, in the military, the disposable nature of men, the physical superiority of men, the mental superiority of men, the viciousness inherent in men, all of which means they're the "Grunts" that die by the thousands in pointless conflicts to satisfy the same patriarchy of rich, white men, who have been passing around these older-than-dirt stereotypes since the beginning of civilization.

Absolutely the MRM is a reactionary movement, when the denial of the patriarchy and the equality of men and women is something that the Feminist movement has been fighting for and continues to fight for in the contemporary.

By denying that patriarchy, the Men's Rights Movement does more damage to malekind than anything "feminazis" do today.

The MRM response to this would be that we deny patriarchy is the source of sexism.

Are men expected to be in charge? Yes.
But that's just one issue.
Here, this is the same set up with the frame changed.

"No no, that's caused by men being imprisoned too much. Everything is. It's all a result of misandry. It all comes back to that single issue where men are the victim. This one issue isn't a symptom of a larger problem, rather, it's the cause of all of them. All prejudice stems from this issue where men are the victim, Because men are imprisoned too much it results in particular views being made about men and women, which reverberates through society and causes all these other problems. So if we can just get people to stop hating men so much, women will be fine. And that is how you being raped and told it was your own fault is secretly all about me and my problems. We've been very clear telling you what causes your problem, it's the pussy pass. Why are you acting so offended? I think you just have a problem in understanding the pussy pass, it's obvious men are imprisoned too much, Here, let me get my crayons and play doh to explain it to you since you seem unable to understand this concept. Don't you see? Mens rights activists help women too, by destroying gender roles created by the pussy pass. When women don't become CEOs, it's because society hates men and expects them to do all the work while women reap the benefits. All suffering and toil must befall men, and this is caused by the Pussy Pass."

When MRAs say they reject patriarchy, we're rejecting the conflation of it with the axis of sexism.
Many feminists don't seem able to seperate the two claims that are central to patriarchy.

(1) Men are expected to be in charge. (MRAs accept this, and accept is a sexism issue.)
(2) This is the root of all sexism issues. (MRAs reject this.)

Because feminists reject the pussy pass, and thus refuse to fight the traditionalist gynocentrists, they do more harm than good.
(This is basically what you are saying.)

MRAs have no love for Traditional Conservatism either, and would point out that women do form a vital part of the discrimination system. It's not just men discriminating against men.

TradCons get blasted almost as much as feminists do on the MRM forums, to the point that
"Tradcon." has become a sufficient rebuttal to their nonsense. We all know they are wrong.

The Brenne Brown studies show that when women shame men for their gender in a traditionalist manner, it has far more devestating effects on men than when men do it.
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archiv ... er/275322/

That's before you even get into the actual discrimination the feminist movement causes.

Just because we reject feminisms mumbo jumbo doesn't make us reactionary. All of our policy solutions should make this clear.
What you've just posted bares no resemblance to reality.

[The Serbian Empire]

Told you so.

I do not want to work with MRAs because I haven never met a single MRA that has not been a giant prick. The ones that consider themselves "moderate" are still assholes. That includes MRAs who identify as female. I am going to work on the inequalities all genders, sexes, orientations, etc. face, as a feminist.

Good luck getting the TERFs and SWERFs to become more sex positive.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

I do not want to work with MRAs because I haven never met a single MRA that has not been a giant prick. The ones that consider themselves "moderate" are still assholes. That includes MRAs who identify as female. I am going to work on the inequalities all genders, sexes, orientations, etc. face, as a feminist.

Good luck getting the TERFs and SWERFs to become more sex positive.

Which is why I don't associate with them, either. I treat those "feminists" the same as I treat MRAs.

[The Serbian Empire]

Good luck getting the TERFs and SWERFs to become more sex positive.

Which is why I don't associate with them, either. I treat those "feminists" the same as I treat MRAs.

The problem is what others within in feminism do consider the sex-negative feminists as more valid than MRAs.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Which is why I don't associate with them, either. I treat those "feminists" the same as I treat MRAs.

The problem is what others within in feminism do consider the sex-negative feminists as more valid than MRAs.

I disagree. I consider them on the same page. And I don't want people - like Ostro - to conflate me with those people. I have, in more than a lot of instances, told Ostro that they need to stop bitching at me because I agree that there are issues in regards to the mistreatment of men. But that doesn't mean that I need to work with vile opinions to bring validity to the fact that I want no mistreatment of men.

[Ostroeuropa]

Which is why I don't associate with them, either. I treat those "feminists" the same as I treat MRAs.

The problem is what others within in feminism do consider the sex-negative feminists as more valid than MRAs.

Worth noting that the MRM does not have a sex negative wing.
The closest thing would be MGTOW, which is a personal decision to abstain from relations with women, and does not support regulation or anything.

We also don't have trans-exclusionaries as a matter of ideology.
We only have the usual public shit. That's slowly getting fixed.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Is there really a "fence" between feminism and the male rights' movement? Or is it merely a figure of speech?

Because, while I sometimes agree with Ostro and Gallo and other people who agree with male rights' ideas, and sometimes agree with feminists and their ideas, I don't believe that taking sides solves anything other than the way you choose to construct said issue. Feminists say "patriarchy" while MRAs say something entirely different.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The problem is what others within in feminism do consider the sex-negative feminists as more valid than MRAs.

I disagree. I consider them on the same page. And I don't want people - like Ostro - to conflate me with those people. I have, in more than a lot of instances, told Ostro that they need to stop bitching at me because I agree that there are issues in regards to the mistreatment of men. But that doesn't mean that I need to work with vile opinions to bring validity to the fact that I want no mistreatment of men.

Here's my problem with that:

If we don't cooperate with assholes we don't exchange ideas and make them think differently. By ignoring them and not collaborating with them you are simply helping in the crystallizing of their ideas, which then becomes even more damaging as a result.

I think this is how separatist movements gained hold, because people were simply ignoring them as loons until they became a notorious minority, which meant enough people bought into their horseshit.

[Internationalist Bastard]

The problem is what others within in feminism do consider the sex-negative feminists as more valid than MRAs.

I disagree. I consider them on the same page. And I don't want people - like Ostro - to conflate me with those people. I have, in more than a lot of instances, told Ostro that they need to stop bitching at me because I agree that there are issues in regards to the mistreatment of men. But that doesn't mean that I need to work with vile opinions to bring validity to the fact that I want no mistreatment of men.

Why don't we just throw out the terms MRA and Feminist and just work together.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

I disagree. I consider them on the same page. And I don't want people - like Ostro - to conflate me with those people. I have, in more than a lot of instances, told Ostro that they need to stop bitching at me because I agree that there are issues in regards to the mistreatment of men. But that doesn't mean that I need to work with vile opinions to bring validity to the fact that I want no mistreatment of men.

Here's my problem with that:

If we don't cooperate with assholes we don't exchange ideas and make them think differently. By ignoring them and not collaborating with them you are simply helping in the crystallizing of their ideas, which then becomes even more damaging as a result.

I think this is how separatist movements gained hold, because people were simply ignoring them as loons until they became a notorious minority, which meant enough people bought into their horseshit.

I do not cooperate with them. That does not mean that I do not hear them.

[Ostroeuropa]

Is there really a "fence" between feminism and the male rights' movement? Or is it merely a figure of speech?

Because, while I sometimes agree with Ostro and Gallo and other people who agree with male rights' ideas, and sometimes agree with feminists and their ideas, I don't believe that taking sides solves anything other than the way you choose to construct said issue. Feminists say "patriarchy" while MRAs say something entirely different.

That's a fine view to hold. It lines up with MRM thinking on the concept and andro/gynocentrism.

The MRM is explicitly androcentric. We feel mens perspective on the issues needs to be told.
What people like Rich Port are basically doing is asserting that only womens perspective of sexism is acceptable.
They demand acceptance of patriarchy as a fact of life, rather than a description of womens subjective experience and how they have decided to construct their anti-sexist narrative.

Provided you sometimes agree with us, the MRM is more than happy to have you as an ally, especially if you're willing to work with them. You don't need to call yourself one either, provided you keep the faith as it were.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Here's my problem with that:

If we don't cooperate with assholes we don't exchange ideas and make them think differently. By ignoring them and not collaborating with them you are simply helping in the crystallizing of their ideas, which then becomes even more damaging as a result.

I think this is how separatist movements gained hold, because people were simply ignoring them as loons until they became a notorious minority, which meant enough people bought into their horseshit.

I do not cooperate with them. That does not mean that I do not hear them.

You can't solve a problem without cooperation. But just calling someone in asshole for not agreeing with you all the way you will never get help from them

[The Serbian Empire]

I disagree. I consider them on the same page. And I don't want people - like Ostro - to conflate me with those people. I have, in more than a lot of instances, told Ostro that they need to stop bitching at me because I agree that there are issues in regards to the mistreatment of men. But that doesn't mean that I need to work with vile opinions to bring validity to the fact that I want no mistreatment of men.

Here's my problem with that:

If we don't cooperate with assholes we don't exchange ideas and make them think differently. By ignoring them and not collaborating with them you are simply helping in the crystallizing of their ideas, which then becomes even more damaging as a result.

I think this is how separatist movements gained hold, because people were simply ignoring them as loons until they became a notorious minority, which meant enough people bought into their horseshit.

I'd go as far as to day the MRMs are a separatist movement as a product of the very vocal and notorious radical feminists having damaged the reputation of feminism.

[Ostroeuropa]

I disagree. I consider them on the same page. And I don't want people - like Ostro - to conflate me with those people. I have, in more than a lot of instances, told Ostro that they need to stop bitching at me because I agree that there are issues in regards to the mistreatment of men. But that doesn't mean that I need to work with vile opinions to bring validity to the fact that I want no mistreatment of men.

Why don't we just throw out the terms MRA and Feminist and just work together.

The MRM is largely supportive of this, provided the eventual merged movement accepted MRM doctrines as counterperspectives to feminist ones.

It's one of the outcomes most MRAs hope for in terms of the movements relationship with feminism.
(Others being, that feminism is destroyed and an entirely unrelated movement take over. Or that feminism cedes mens issues to the MRM and leaves us alone. Some MGTOW radicals would say they want society to collapse, and to accomplish this, men should avoid relationships with women, or doing any of the duties that men are forced into. Without men to do the difficult and deadly shit, society will fall in short order. They hold this view because of cynicism, and lacking the belief that people will ever care about mens issues in our current culture, so we have to destroy it entirely. It's an interesting viewpoint, but one not likely to work, for obvious reasons. Mostly it serves as a justification for cynicism and opting out of society in my opinion.)

[Ostroeuropa]

Here's my problem with that:

If we don't cooperate with assholes we don't exchange ideas and make them think differently. By ignoring them and not collaborating with them you are simply helping in the crystallizing of their ideas, which then becomes even more damaging as a result.

I think this is how separatist movements gained hold, because people were simply ignoring them as loons until they became a notorious minority, which meant enough people bought into their horseshit.

I'd go as far as to day the MRMs are a separatist movement as a product of the very vocal and notorious radical feminists having damaged the reputation of feminism.

It's not just that they damaged the reputation.
They made feminism functionally incapable of delivering on it's promises of emancipating men.

[The Serbian Empire]

I disagree. I consider them on the same page. And I don't want people - like Ostro - to conflate me with those people. I have, in more than a lot of instances, told Ostro that they need to stop bitching at me because I agree that there are issues in regards to the mistreatment of men. But that doesn't mean that I need to work with vile opinions to bring validity to the fact that I want no mistreatment of men.

Why don't we just throw out the terms MRA and Feminist and just work together.

Then you see the radicals throw such tirades that it won't die.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Here's my problem with that:

If we don't cooperate with assholes we don't exchange ideas and make them think differently. By ignoring them and not collaborating with them you are simply helping in the crystallizing of their ideas, which then becomes even more damaging as a result.

I think this is how separatist movements gained hold, because people were simply ignoring them as loons until they became a notorious minority, which meant enough people bought into their horseshit.

I do not cooperate with them. That does not mean that I do not hear them.

The issue is that "hearing them" solves nothing if you don't call out bullshit as bullshit and you explain why this is bullshit, and making your voice heard within said circle.

When you have a circlejerk, don't expect anything useful but extremely biased solutions to come out of it.

When you say "I refuse to collaborate with you because you're an asshole" you're simply reinforcing their ideas through negative feedback. It's how certain people work, especially people with radical ideas. I mean, look at Chessmistress.