The NS Mens Rights Thread

[Haktiva]

It really depends on how frustrated they are.

And the individual. For some, it is a disconnect from reality coddled by the messages of the feminist movement that all men should be "gentlemen." For guys that have had even less success with relationships/sex, they could bear some contempt for women. It all stems from being unable to recognize why you're failing to fuck or get a girlfriend or whatever your goal is. Feminism is counter-productive in this regard. It fails to produce any large quantity of happy, successful males. Which in turn, can lead to contempt for women or misinterpretation of women.

Gentlemen? I thought a main factor of feminism was a refusal of chivalry.

Feminism (or the MRM for that matter) is not about maintaining or finding a relationship. Their anger at feminism is only because they feel it's the root cause of their trouble. While feminists have provided romantic advice, this is not the focus of their anger.

Look, I understand many men are frustrated by a lack of success. Failure and being told you are a failure undermines logical thought and leads to anger. The men who believe this theory and act accordingly are almost analogous to Trump voters. They're angry. People selling shit validate their feelings and encourage them to get angry. This means more customers. It has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with a manufactured idea based on semi-conspiratorial beliefs.

as far as I can tell, most people are more interested in some sort of system rather than focusing on themselves. MGTOW isn't exempt from this as far as I can tell, we see a lot of anger from the guys, usually the ones new to the idea and especially if they've been through the grinder(usually divorced and have had their kids stolen from them)

for me, the ideal is someone like Raging Golden Eagle, a content provider on Youtube. He's never been burnt and simply weighed the pros and cons and chose to remain a bachelor. He's not bitter or angry, he just made the most economically sound argument and he's a lot happier for it. He's chill as fuck. That's the ideal. His type if a lot more common among younger guys as far as I can tell.

[New Ogunquit]

That, and the research on wolves that the term came from was itself inaccurate, even if we were wolves.

You're just angry because I'm alpha now. (Jk)

Women are allowed to be categorized in much fuzzier ways, but as a general pattern, people like men to be sorted out sharply and clearly. Simply defying categorization as a man invites a hostile reaction.

Interesting... What would you say constitutes "defying categorization"?

[Alyakia]

shouldn't you at least call yourself a MGTHW instead of MGTOW

[Haktiva]

shouldn't you at least call yourself a MGTHW instead of MGTOW

you mean MGHOW?

[Ashworth-Attwater]

>men's rights

Those bloody feminazis, I tell ya!

[Ashkera]

>men's rights

(Image)

Those bloody feminazis, I tell ya!

MRAs have seen that kind of shitposting ever since they started to be a thing. It's a shaming tool, and since shaming is one of the primary methods of controlling men and making men act against their own interests, they reject it. *Actually* breaking from the male gender role and not just doing traditionalism 2.0 means "man up" doesn't work anymore, buddy.

Besides, half the time the kind of person who posts such a thing would throw a fit if feminists were described as fat, ugly, unfuckable harpies (which is the same tactic, just used in the other direction).

[Alyakia]

shouldn't you at least call yourself a MGTHW instead of MGTOW

you mean MGHOW?

yes

[Tahar Joblis]

That, and the research on wolves that the term came from was itself inaccurate, even if we were wolves.

You're just angry because I'm alpha now. (Jk)

Women are allowed to be categorized in much fuzzier ways, but as a general pattern, people like men to be sorted out sharply and clearly. Simply defying categorization as a man invites a hostile reaction.

Interesting... What would you say constitutes "defying categorization"?

Sexuality and gender identification are both very nice examples.

If you look at any identifications other than "straight" or "gay," including but not limited to:

• Bisexual
• Asexual
• Pansexual
• Demisexual
• Sapiosexual

Any of these categories, you'll see far more women than men. You'll also see a lot more comfort with and acceptance of those labels. That's because outside of "straight" and "gay" (heterosexual / homosexual) it's a little bit muddy what any of those labels means. (Even with bisexuality - we could be talking anywhere from Kinsey 2-5, potentially.)

Gender identity is another big one. Transwomen face intense violence, because if their gender identity comes across as ambiguous leading to misgendering, they are received as a man with an ambiguous gender identity. Transmen, on the other hand, when their gender identity comes across as ambiguous leading to misgendering, they are received as a masculine woman, which is OK.

[Cenetra]

>men's rights

(Image)

Those bloody feminazis, I tell ya!

MRAs have seen that kind of shitposting ever since they started to be a thing. It's a shaming tool, and since shaming is one of the primary methods of controlling men and making men act against their own interests, they reject it. *Actually* breaking from the male gender role and not just doing traditionalism 2.0 means "man up" doesn't work anymore, buddy.

Besides, half the time the kind of person who posts such a thing would throw a fit if feminists were described as fat, ugly, unfuckable harpies (which is the same tactic, just used in the other direction).

I love how the most common insults against MRAs (besides calling them misogynist), basically either accuse them of being undesirable sexual partners for women (fat/ugly/neckbeard/fedora jokes), or of failing to fulfill their assigned gender roles as protectors of and providers for women (loser, basement-dweller, weak, insecure).

In general, I think Lewis's law (the comments on any article on feminism justify feminism) and its gender-reversed equivalent are logically unsound, but in this case you really are making the MRAs' point for them.

[Ostroeuropa]

MRAs have seen that kind of shitposting ever since they started to be a thing. It's a shaming tool, and since shaming is one of the primary methods of controlling men and making men act against their own interests, they reject it. *Actually* breaking from the male gender role and not just doing traditionalism 2.0 means "man up" doesn't work anymore, buddy.

Besides, half the time the kind of person who posts such a thing would throw a fit if feminists were described as fat, ugly, unfuckable harpies (which is the same tactic, just used in the other direction).

I love how the most common insults against MRAs (besides calling them misogynist), basically either accuse them of being undesirable sexual partners for women (fat/ugly/neckbeard/fedora jokes), or of failing to fulfill their assigned gender roles as protectors of and providers for women (loser, basement-dweller, weak, insecure).

In general, I think Lewis's law (the comments on any article on feminism justify feminism) and its gender-reversed equivalent are logically unsound, but in this case you really are making the MRAs' point for them.

Pretty much yeh.
The shaming tactics only work on men who are scared of womens disapproval. It says a lot about their state of mind, by the way, the way they throw out these insults.
If women they are just being sexist assholes.
If it's a man, then it's revealing a level of indoctrination into valueing their self-worth based on womens approval.
This is why they are feminists.
Not because equality, but because it's what women want.
This is also why they have the AMRat problem I pointed out in a previous post.
Pointing this out about them will get them to shut up, hopefully.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=350826&p=25812509&hilit=amrat#p25812509

you mean MGHOW?

yes

It's part of MGTOWism to point out to other men that they should also consider their options and reject the shaming rhetoric. It isn't a wholly selfish thing.

On top of that there is probably some level of comfort provided from the group label which helps resist against shaming rhetoric by keeping it forefront in the adherents minds that they are not alone in their conclusions.

[Haktiva]

Here's a question, what do you consider to be more detrimental to the well being of men(it can apply to women, but this thread is about men), Traditionalism or Feminism.

I think traditionalism is worse for men in the sense that it keeps men down out of necessity, at least with feminism there's opportunities to avoid your traditional gender roles because "equality"(unless we start dealing with tradfems, which I'm starting to think is the mainstream feminists position now)

With traditionalism, a man has to provide for his wife, as she can't leave the house(or pedestal) because she's barefoot and pregnant all the time. This is where we see the zealous worship of motherhood start. Really, there's nothing miraculous about it. Women can perform their basic biological function as a sex while in a coma, and most countries allow other children to look after infants(babysitting). Traditionalism holds both sexes back, but in the context of men's rights, it tricks men into loving their own disposability.

Feminism is nothing compared to traditionalism, if anything feminism has benefited tons of men, in the west at least, because women being strong and independent(not the whiny SJWs and hypocrites we usually see) frees men. Women can earn their own damn living, men don't have to provide for them(unless you count the taxes and such each sex pays).

There's some fear among MGTOWs that MRAs are infiltrated by tradcons, subverting their efforts in order to make marriage appealing to men again. It certainly benefits women more than men, but it's hammered into a lot of guys heads that they need to be with a girl in order to be successful. It's quite disturbing, actually.

[Kelinfort]

Here's a question, what do you consider to be more detrimental to the well being of men(it can apply to women, but this thread is about men), Traditionalism or Feminism.

I think traditionalism is worse for men in the sense that it keeps men down out of necessity, at least with feminism there's opportunities to avoid your traditional gender roles because "equality"(unless we start dealing with tradfems, which I'm starting to think is the mainstream feminists position now)

With traditionalism, a man has to provide for his wife, as she can't leave the house(or pedestal) because she's barefoot and pregnant all the time. This is where we see the zealous worship of motherhood start. Really, there's nothing miraculous about it. Women can perform their basic biological function as a sex while in a coma, and most countries allow other children to look after infants(babysitting). Traditionalism holds both sexes back, but in the context of men's rights, it tricks men into loving their own disposability.

Feminism is nothing compared to traditionalism, if anything feminism has benefited tons of men, in the west at least, because women being strong and independent(not the whiny SJWs and hypocrites we usually see) frees men. Women can earn their own damn living, men don't have to provide for them(unless you count the taxes and such each sex pays).

There's some fear among MGTOWs that MRAs are infiltrated by tradcons, subverting their efforts in order to make marriage appealing to men again. It certainly benefits women more than men, but it's hammered into a lot of guys heads that they need to be with a girl in order to be successful. It's quite disturbing, actually.

Well, I agree for once. I mean, I think your rhetoric is a little odd, but I agree with the main point.

[Kelinfort]

I love how the most common insults against MRAs (besides calling them misogynist), basically either accuse them of being undesirable sexual partners for women (fat/ugly/neckbeard/fedora jokes), or of failing to fulfill their assigned gender roles as protectors of and providers for women (loser, basement-dweller, weak, insecure).

In general, I think Lewis's law (the comments on any article on feminism justify feminism) and its gender-reversed equivalent are logically unsound, but in this case you really are making the MRAs' point for them.

Pretty much yeh.
The shaming tactics only work on men who are scared of womens disapproval. It says a lot about their state of mind, by the way, the way they throw out these insults.
If women they are just being sexist assholes.
If it's a man, then it's revealing a level of indoctrination into valueing their self-worth based on womens approval.
This is why they are feminists.
Not because equality, but because it's what women want.
This is also why they have the AMRat problem I pointed out in a previous post.
Pointing this out about them will get them to shut up, hopefully.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=350826&p=25812509&hilit=amrat#p25812509

yes

It's part of MGTOWism to point out to other men that they should also consider their options and reject the shaming rhetoric. It isn't a wholly selfish thing.

On top of that there is probably some level of comfort provided from the group label which helps resist against shaming rhetoric by keeping it forefront in the adherents minds that they are not alone in their conclusions.

No, sorry, I'm not brainwashed or calling myself a feminist because I want women's approval.

[Ostroeuropa]

Pretty much yeh.
The shaming tactics only work on men who are scared of womens disapproval. It says a lot about their state of mind, by the way, the way they throw out these insults.
If women they are just being sexist assholes.
If it's a man, then it's revealing a level of indoctrination into valueing their self-worth based on womens approval.
This is why they are feminists.
Not because equality, but because it's what women want.
This is also why they have the AMRat problem I pointed out in a previous post.
Pointing this out about them will get them to shut up, hopefully.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=350826&p=25812509&hilit=amrat#p25812509



It's part of MGTOWism to point out to other men that they should also consider their options and reject the shaming rhetoric. It isn't a wholly selfish thing.

On top of that there is probably some level of comfort provided from the group label which helps resist against shaming rhetoric by keeping it forefront in the adherents minds that they are not alone in their conclusions.

No, sorry, I'm not brainwashed or calling myself a feminist because I want women's approval.

Are you saying you are the sort who throws out insults such as those we're talking about, or are you saying you don't properly read posts before you respond to them? Because if it's the former, I just don't believe you based on your behavior. If your go to insults for men involve attacking their desirability and utility to women, it suggests something about the way your value yourself and the way you see the world.
If it's the latter, then, oh ok, maybe you should. Because you keep doing that in these threads, tbh. You jump to conclusions that make what people say seem more extreme than it is, then whine at me for being too extreme.
Um.
Are you sure?

[Kelinfort]

No, sorry, I'm not brainwashed or calling myself a feminist because I want women's approval.

Are you saying you are the sort who throws out insults such as those we're talking about, or are you saying you don't properly read posts before you respond to them? Because if it's the former, I just don't believe you based on your behavior.
If it's the latter, then, oh ok, maybe you should.

How am I misinterpreting the top part of your post? I'm not even commenting on the response to Alyakia.

[Ostroeuropa]

Are you saying you are the sort who throws out insults such as those we're talking about, or are you saying you don't properly read posts before you respond to them? Because if it's the former, I just don't believe you based on your behavior.
If it's the latter, then, oh ok, maybe you should.

How am I misinterpreting the top part of your post? I'm not even commenting on the response to Alyakia.

The bit where I talk about shaming tactics? Do you use them? Because if so, I don't believe you when you say you aren't exactly what I said.
If you don't, then why did you feel the need to come in and say it does't apply to you? Nobody said it did.

Like I said, you keep jumping to conclusions on posts and trying to have a gotcha moment that simply isn't coming, because i'm not the extremist you desperately want me to be so you can justify your aversion to the movement.
You did this with the ISIS post a while back.

[Terminus Alpha]

No, sorry, I'm not brainwashed or calling myself a feminist because I want women's approval.

Are you saying you are the sort who throws out insults such as those we're talking about, or are you saying you don't properly read posts before you respond to them? Because if it's the former, I just don't believe you based on your behavior.
If it's the latter, then, oh ok, maybe you should.

I believe he's responding to this:

The shaming tactics only work on men who are scared of womens disapproval. It says a lot about their state of mind, by the way, the way they throw out these insults.
If women they are just being sexist assholes.
If it's a man, then it's revealing a level of indoctrination into valueing their self-worth based on womens approval.
This is why they are feminists.
Not because equality, but because it's what women want.

Which implies male feminists/men's lib guys are brainwashed into feminism because they don't want to disappoint women.
I'm not brainwashed into my position (Men's Lib) because I'm afraid of disappointing women, I chose it after seeing MRA/MGTOW positions, not liking their opposition to feminism (which I support because it's essential to gender equality), and finding that a male counterpart to feminism - Men's Liberation - existed.

[Kelinfort]

How am I misinterpreting the top part of your post? I'm not even commenting on the response to Alyakia.

The bit where I talk about shaming tactics? Do you use them?

No. Not against MRA advocates. Those who support the red pill, PUA's or Roosh V's materials, I tend to mock.


And while I do see you were referring to specifically insults, but you were pretty broad in the application.

[Ostroeuropa]

Are you saying you are the sort who throws out insults such as those we're talking about, or are you saying you don't properly read posts before you respond to them? Because if it's the former, I just don't believe you based on your behavior.
If it's the latter, then, oh ok, maybe you should.

I believe he's responding to this:

The shaming tactics only work on men who are scared of womens disapproval. It says a lot about their state of mind, by the way, the way they throw out these insults.
If women they are just being sexist assholes.
If it's a man, then it's revealing a level of indoctrination into valueing their self-worth based on womens approval.
This is why they are feminists.
Not because equality, but because it's what women want.

Which implies male feminists/men's lib guys are brainwashed into feminism because they don't want to disappoint women.
I'm not brainwashed into my position (Men's Lib) because I'm afraid of disappointing women, I chose it after seeing MRA/MGTOW positions, not liking their opposition to feminism (which I support because it's essential to gender equality), and finding that a male counterpart to feminism - Men's Liberation - existed.

Only if they use shaming tactics. It says so right there.
"The way they throw out these insults."
(Subject of discussion is people who use these insults)
If women they are just being sexist assholes.
If it's a man, then it's revealing a level of indoctrination into valueing their self-worth based on womens approval.


So whence the decision that it's all male feminists?
Because if all male feminists do use those kind of tactics, then yeh, i'm happy to say they are all brainwashed and doing it to be nice to women.
If it's not all of them, then i'm not talking about all of them and never claimed to be.

Why don't you outline menslib for us. I'm happy to point out why it's not a good position compared to the MRM. (Though we can and have worked with Menslibs in the past.) Which positions are you against of ours?

[Terminus Alpha]

I believe he's responding to this:



Which implies male feminists/men's lib guys are brainwashed into feminism because they don't want to disappoint women.
I'm not brainwashed into my position (Men's Lib) because I'm afraid of disappointing women, I chose it after seeing MRA/MGTOW positions, not liking their opposition to feminism (which I support because it's essential to gender equality), and finding that a male counterpart to feminism - Men's Liberation - existed.

Only if they use shaming tactics. It says so right there.
"The way they throw out these insults."
(Subject of discussion is people who use these insults)
If women they are just being sexist assholes.
If it's a man, then it's revealing a level of indoctrination into valueing their self-worth based on womens approval.


So whence the decision that it's all male feminists?
Because if all male feminists do use those kind of tactics, then yeh, i'm happy to say they are all brainwashed and doing it to be nice to women.
If it's not all of them, then i'm not talking about all of them and never claimed to be.

Why don't you outline menslib for us. I'm happy to point out why it's not a good position compared to the MRM. (Though we can and have worked with Menslibs in the past.) Which positions are you against of ours?

Check the side-bar here and "Our Mission."

Also, the MRM attracts a lot of outright misogynists and "Red Pillers." I'm not into that kind of stuff, to say the least.

[Ostroeuropa]

Only if they use shaming tactics. It says so right there.
"The way they throw out these insults."
(Subject of discussion is people who use these insults)
If women they are just being sexist assholes.
If it's a man, then it's revealing a level of indoctrination into valueing their self-worth based on womens approval.


So whence the decision that it's all male feminists?
Because if all male feminists do use those kind of tactics, then yeh, i'm happy to say they are all brainwashed and doing it to be nice to women.
If it's not all of them, then i'm not talking about all of them and never claimed to be.

Why don't you outline menslib for us. I'm happy to point out why it's not a good position compared to the MRM. (Though we can and have worked with Menslibs in the past.) Which positions are you against of ours?

Check the side-bar here and "Our Mission."

Yeh, i've been there and posted there.
Basically it's all a flat denial that there is any problem with the feminist movements frame of reference and assertions of universality.
I got banned for pointing out that the media consistently pushes gynocentric feminism, even if dualistic feminists exist. (I did this in a thread where someone was asking why feminists are attacking men in the media. I was pointing out some feminists don't agree with the feminism being pushed and the one being pushed is sexist. Got banned as a result of admitting any form of feminism is sexist.)

So your mission is a PR job, and it hasn't managed to fool me. You only started to get going once you realized the MRM is going to gain steam. You don't actually care about men, you just want to derail the MRM.
Nor has it managed to fool most of MensRights, nor the Egalitarian subs.

You also banned discussion of some male issues.

Criticism of feminist ideology is in general banned too, and criticism of women and the part they play in upholding sexism in generals spooks you guys.

So it's a useless ideology. It'll collapse in on itself as more and more AMRats take it over, just like feminism for men did.
Because you people refuse to critically examine feminism, you are incapable of liberating men.

[Ostroeuropa]

Also, the MRM attracts a lot of outright misogynists and "Red Pillers." I'm not into that kind of stuff, to say the least.

"A lot."
Feminism attracts misandrists, but you're into that?

The point of the MRM is to provide a safe space for men to talk about their perspective of sexism and such.
By asserting that some men cannot be allowed to talk about their perspective, menslib causes a chilling effect that allows AMRats to start declaring everything misogynist if it doesn't line up with gynocentric feminism.
That's your problem.


The MRM ALLOWS misogynists and such to post and then tries to explain to them why their perspective is imbalanced by causing them to view incidents of sexism as victimizing men. By trying to have a movement that won't offend women, you're allowing women to dictate the mens movement. That makes it useless. You would realize this if you'd bothered to consider that maybe we need a separate perspective from feminism entirely.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/commen ... ?context=3

Read these two comments.

If menslib can align itself with these comments, BOTH of them, then we'll be fine. It'll be a matter of MLAs and MRAs merely differing on the philosophical heritage they have. (One as "Oh shit, we were being sexist for years! Time to stop!" and one as "You guys are sexists and here is why.")
If it can't, then it's useless, and merely another expression of feminism trying to control the dialogue around sexism in order to uphold it's gynocentric viewpoint.
The MRM has good reasons to be feminist critical, and until you people accept that, or until your power to prevent us from causing progress is broken, nothing will get done, because you aren't actually capable of liberating men until you accept both of the things those comments go over.

Hence, we focus on breaking your reputation and power among the masses. Either it forces you into considering if we have a point out of fear of destruction of your movement, or no longer becomes an issue.

[Terminus Alpha]

Yeah, you didn't convince me. I think we have more than just a few differences in thought, so I'm just going to say goodbye.

[Ostroeuropa]

Yeah, you didn't convince me. I think we have more than just a few differences in thought, so I'm just going to say goodbye.

Didn't convince you of what, exactly?
Do you disagree with the posts I put out? Because that'd be a great way to demonstrate to everyone that Menslib is just feminism pretending to be for men.
I didn't convince you of the necessity to allow men to have a space to talk about gender issues without worrying about womens opinion of them? (Like women have)?
Or was it that I failed to convince you of the media bias in favor of gynocentrism?

I mean, your whole post here is basically you deciding not to engage with the argument I laid out.
I contend that's because you have no argument, and can only assert your gynocentrism in response to it.
"Patriarcheez and Wimminz haz it worse, sexism against men impossibru."
Which hasn't been going well for you guys in terms of PR, now has it.

[The Alexanderians]

You're just angry because I'm alpha now. (Jk)

Interesting... What would you say constitutes "defying categorization"?

Sexuality and gender identification are both very nice examples.

If you look at any identifications other than "straight" or "gay," including but not limited to:

• Bisexual
• Asexual
• Pansexual
• Demisexual
• Sapiosexual

Any of these categories, you'll see far more women than men. You'll also see a lot more comfort with and acceptance of those labels. That's because outside of "straight" and "gay" (heterosexual / homosexual) it's a little bit muddy what any of those labels means. (Even with bisexuality - we could be talking anywhere from Kinsey 2-5, potentially.)

Gender identity is another big one. Transwomen face intense violence, because if their gender identity comes across as ambiguous leading to misgendering, they are received as a man with an ambiguous gender identity. Transmen, on the other hand, when their gender identity comes across as ambiguous leading to misgendering, they are received as a masculine woman, which is OK.

Ok this may back fire...What is "sapiosexual"?