Why does no one care about the MRA

[Mavorpen]

1. I suppose the comment about MRM is, but the comment about egalitarianism is not. Egalitarianism does not inherently address the issue of true social inequality, as it typically neglects to address the systemic side of things. For example, if you have two children, lock one of them in a small enclosure with minimal food and water and do not give him access to an education for, say, 21 years, while the other child has an abundance of high quality food, a good education, etc. After 21 years, you decide to remove the first child from the enclosure and tell them that they are now free to pursue whatever they want. From an egalitarian perspective, you've made them equal. They now have the same freedoms that you restricted the first child from. But you have also created an inherent disadvantage in the first child that necessitates more than simply equalizing them de jure.
2. I appreciate the relative open-mindedness.

1. I am not very confident that you understand egalitarianism. You're not even heading towards the honest mistake "equality of outcomes" route. Protip: The concept you are searching for is "equality of opportunity", which means getting people to the same level. More or less, of course - these things are pretty much impossible to do absolutely perfectly, because of unexpected slight influences from things that nobody would think of and may not even be possible to solve. The idea behind "equality of opportunity" - which is what I have mostly seen from all kinds of egalitarians - is that your decisions are what make or break you.
2. Thanks.

1. I'm an anarchist, theoretical egalitarianism has formed the bedrock of my core ideological framework for over a century. I can't go two paragraphs in a leftist text without egalitarianism being discussed. But yes, "equality of opportunity" is what I was discussing, and, again, it is fundamentally flawed without addressing the underlying difference in social power due to hierarchy. What I am discussing is the typical foundation of egalitarianism from a legal perspective, which is the most common form of it. If you go outside of that, you enter into the realm of Marxism, socialism, communism, anarchism, etc.

[Proctopeo]

1. I am not very confident that you understand egalitarianism. You're not even heading towards the honest mistake "equality of outcomes" route. Protip: The concept you are searching for is "equality of opportunity", which means getting people to the same level. More or less, of course - these things are pretty much impossible to do absolutely perfectly, because of unexpected slight influences from things that nobody would think of and may not even be possible to solve. The idea behind "equality of opportunity" - which is what I have mostly seen from all kinds of egalitarians - is that your decisions are what make or break you.
2. Thanks.

1. I'm an anarchist, theoretical egalitarianism has formed the bedrock of my core ideological framework for over a century. I can't go two paragraphs in a leftist text without egalitarianism being discussed. But yes, "equality of opportunity" is what I was discussing, and, again, it is fundamentally flawed without addressing the underlying difference in social power due to hierarchy. What I am discussing is the typical foundation of egalitarianism from a legal perspective, which is the most common form of it. If you go outside of that, you enter into the realm of Marxism, socialism, communism, anarchism, etc.

1. Then what do you suggest? Equality of outcome?
(obligatory condescending laughter)
In all seriousness, though, it's evident you don't understand "equality of opportunity".

[Mavorpen]

1. I'm an anarchist, theoretical egalitarianism has formed the bedrock of my core ideological framework for over a century. I can't go two paragraphs in a leftist text without egalitarianism being discussed. But yes, "equality of opportunity" is what I was discussing, and, again, it is fundamentally flawed without addressing the underlying difference in social power due to hierarchy. What I am discussing is the typical foundation of egalitarianism from a legal perspective, which is the most common form of it. If you go outside of that, you enter into the realm of Marxism, socialism, communism, anarchism, etc.

1. Then what do you suggest? Equality of outcome?
(obligatory condescending laughter)
In all seriousness, though, it's evident you don't understand "equality of opportunity".

I'm not sure why you asked me a question answered by the majority of my post.

But yes, "equality of opportunity" is what I was discussing, and, again, it is fundamentally flawed without addressing the underlying difference in social power due to hierarchy. What I am discussing is the typical foundation of egalitarianism from a legal perspective, which is the most common form of it. If you go outside of that, you enter into the realm of Marxism, socialism, communism, anarchism, etc.

[Chessmistress]

I mean, the real impediment is capitalism, so you're not going to get the best out of either side until that's addressed.

Marxist-"feminist" detected.
USSR, Maoist China, Communist Vietnam, were still VERY patriarchal...

“Patriarchy is itself the prevailing religion of the entire planet, and its essential message is necrophilia. All of the so-called religions legitimating patriarchy are mere sects subsumed under its vast umbrella/canopy. All— from buddhism and hinduism to islam, judaism, christianity, to secular derivatives such as freudianism, jungianism, marxism, and maoism— are infrastructures of the edifice of patriarchy.” ― Sheila Jeffreys, from "Unpacking Queer Politics: A Lesbian Feminist Perspective"

@Galloism: I saw the movie.
I'm not going to comment it right now.

[Gamergirl90]

I think there are legitimate issues men face in society, and I say this as an ardent female feminist. One big issue, I think, is social portrayal of men in media. We see men often portrayed as hyper masculine tough guys, or hapless hopeless idiots who meander through life with a woman constantly picking up behind them.

I'll give an example from my own personal life, and something I'm a bit ashamed of. This weekend, I was out shopping with my boyfriend, and I stopped in a shoe store for some summer shoes I need. And this is generally how the conversation went

me: while we're here, you should get some new work shoes
him: I don't need any shoes for my office
me: I only saw the one pair of black shoes at home, let's just try some on, how about this?
him: Those won't fit, none of the brands in here fit me
me: Well, try them on, they could fit
him: They won't fit, and I don't need new shoes
me: you do need them, and just try them on

Proceeds to try on a half dozen pairs, nothing fits

me: ok, let's go to another store
him: no, I told you, I don't need more shoes

At this point, I started actually getting a bit annoyed at him, he just wouldn't LISTEN to me. Why did he feel the need to argue about getting new shoes like a baby? I'm trying to do something NICE for him and help him in his job, and he just complaints about it.

me: you go to work in the same old sneakers every day, you need to look more professional
him: of course I wear sneakers to work. I keep my work shoes in my office like everybody else does. Why would I wear dress shoes on the bus?
me: I haven't seen you get new shoes in a while, those are probably old
him: I bought them three weeks ago, I still have a 2nd pair still in the box, in my office, where they belong. The dress shoes at home are for when we go out.


Now I'm getting really annoyed. I even felt a little bothered that he went and bought shoes without talking to me. And if he had just told me this in the beginning I wouldn't be so annoyed right now.

me: Well, why didn't you tell me that?

Then I saw something flash in his eyes, something I rarely ever saw. Actual, legitimate anger. Not annoyance, not impatience, he looked straight up pissed.

him: I told you TWENTY minutes ago, I don't need new work shoes, and even if I did need new shoes, nothing in here would fit me. I'm 35 god damned years old and I've been a working professional for over a decade, and I don't need your f*cking help getting dressed.

And then I felt my own anger rising, how DARE he...he...he what? Buy his shoes without my approval? Dress himself in a way that didn't get my thumbs up? "hide" shoes in his office without me knowing about it? Not take the proper time to justify to me he didn't want new shoes?

What the hell was I doing? I had gotten angry that my mid 30s, fiercely intelligent, highly educated, professionally successful boyfriend was refusing to admit he needed my help dressing himself

I was standing in a store with the man I love DEMANDING he justify to me why he felt he didn't need new shoes and why he thought he knew better than me what shoes fit his own feet.

And I think part of it is this is the image of men we portray in society and media. Cute, charming, funny, cuddly, but UTTERLY hopeless at basic life skills and needing a woman to come rescue him. And yes he's loving, and charming, and funny, and goofy. And he's also a 35 year old man with 20 years of education and 10 years of post gradschool employment. He wasn't a petulant man baby who can't dress himself and pouts when he gets dragged to the store in an effort to make him look presentable. He's an intelligent professional. He's not trying to stall by saying nothing fits, he knows they don't fit because some time in the last 10 years of working full time professionally he's tried them on before.

Because, this is the image of men we get right? The Ray Barones, the Joey Tribianis, the Jay Pritchetts. The Peter Griffons.

We get men mostly in 2 flavors, the hyper masculine of the dramas, and the bumbling manbabies of the comedies. What we don't see a lot of are men who are just..people. Capable, reasonably intelligent adults who just handle their lives with a basic capability. Neither Jim Gordon punching bad guys in the face, nor putting the blanket in the oven and the turkey in the washing machine.

And don't get me wrong, women have it bad TOO, for every hapless fool there's an ice queen harpy, and ever dashing hero there's a sex pot villain. And that's a problem as well.

One of modern feminism's core tenants is media shapes social outlooks, and how media portrays women creates problem for society's view on women. I agree entirely. But I think we do it to men too, and that harms both how men view themselves, and how we view our male partners. Not as intelligent educated adults who can handle their own shit, but children who need help dressing themselves.

[Mavorpen]

I mean, the real impediment is capitalism, so you're not going to get the best out of either side until that's addressed.

Marxist-"feminist" detected.
USSR, Maoist China, Communist Vietnam, were still VERY patriarchal...

“Patriarchy is itself the prevailing religion of the entire planet, and its essential message is necrophilia. All of the so-called religions legitimating patriarchy are mere sects subsumed under its vast umbrella/canopy. All— from buddhism and hinduism to islam, judaism, christianity, to secular derivatives such as freudianism, jungianism, marxism, and maoism— are infrastructures of the edifice of patriarchy.” ― Sheila Jeffreys, from "Unpacking Queer Politics: A Lesbian Feminist Perspective"

Well that's one of the dumbest things I've ever read, considering Marx and Engles wrote pretty extensively in support of feminism.

[Galloism]

I mean, the real impediment is capitalism, so you're not going to get the best out of either side until that's addressed.

Marxist-"feminist" detected.
USSR, Maoist China, Communist Vietnam, were still VERY patriarchal...

“Patriarchy is itself the prevailing religion of the entire planet, and its essential message is necrophilia. All of the so-called religions legitimating patriarchy are mere sects subsumed under its vast umbrella/canopy. All— from buddhism and hinduism to islam, judaism, christianity, to secular derivatives such as freudianism, jungianism, marxism, and maoism— are infrastructures of the edifice of patriarchy.” ― Sheila Jeffreys, from "Unpacking Queer Politics: A Lesbian Feminist Perspective"

@Galloism: I saw the movie.
I'm not going to comment it right now.

Ok.

I'm glad you did, incidentally. It's hard to listen to what your "enemy" has to say. Really listen. It's a brave thing.

[Chessmistress]

Marxist-"feminist" detected.
USSR, Maoist China, Communist Vietnam, were still VERY patriarchal...


@Galloism: I saw the movie.
I'm not going to comment it right now.

Ok.

I'm glad you did, incidentally. It's hard to listen to what your "enemy" has to say. Really listen. It's a brave thing.

I'm a practical and very pragmatic person, I think that lacking of knowledge is a great error.
And I also saw "The Hunt for Red October"

Captain Ramius: [spoken "You parle ruski"] You speak Russian.

Jack Ryan: [in Russian] A little. It is wise to study the ways of ones adversary. Don't you think?

Captain Ramius: [in English] It is.

[Galloism]

Ok.

I'm glad you did, incidentally. It's hard to listen to what your "enemy" has to say. Really listen. It's a brave thing.

I'm a pratical and pragmatic person, I think that lacking of knowledge is a great error.
And I also saw "The Hunt for Red October"

Captain Ramius: [spoken "You parle ruski"] You speak Russian.

Jack Ryan: [in Russian] A little. It is wise to study the ways of ones adversary. Don't you think?

Captain Ramius: [in English] It is.

One of my favorite scenes from that movie.

I also like the scene where Sean Connery does a Crazy Ivan, and they go full silent. And him and the radio officer are talking about it.

"So what's the catch?"

"The catch is a boat this size doesn't exactly stop on a dime. If we're too close, we'll drift right into the back of him."

[Natapoc]

Because Men already have more rights than they probably should. They certainly have more privileged than women who they tend to scapegoat for all their perceived problems.

[Ors Might]

Because Men already have more rights than they probably should. They certainly have more privileged than women who they tend to scapegoat for all their perceived problems.

You mean like the right to be drafted into brutal, bloody wars? Or how about the right to not be taken seriously as a rape victim? Or did you mean the right to be ignored when your wife beats you? There are just so many rights to choose from.

[Galloism]

Because Men already have more rights than they probably should. They certainly have more privileged than women who they tend to scapegoat for all their perceived problems.

I suggest you watch the film in the OP. It's not earth shattering, but it might give you a glimpse into the massive pervasive institutional sexist discrimination men face, what effects it's having, and the people who actually care about it.

You probably will disagree with parts of it. That's ok. It's still a bit of any eye opener.

[La Cosa Fedora]

It's because the MRM is too intellectualy challenging for most people.

It tries very hard to be a populist, rabble rousing movement. But being an MRA is an inherently intellectually refined place to argue from, and such populist efforts are inherently doomed to accomplish nothing other than to muddle the message and fail.

To become a MRA, it is not enough to reject feminist theory. Those who merely reject join the side of traditional conservative, dare I say patriarchy.

But the MRM is born from something different. Not just rejection, but actual understanding of feminism.

This in and of itself puts the MRM beyond the reach of at least 50% of the population. However, the MRA also, as a consequence of his understanding of feminism, understands and rejects the traditionalist ideologies. It may come as a surprise that this is a feat of intellectual firepower, but most people who profess traditionalist ideas fail to understand them. It is appropriate to call such people "sheeple", for they merely go where they are lead, believing what they hear from the media and at their churches.

This is why nobody seems to care about the MRM, to the overwhelming majority of the population, the very debate takes place on a plane too high to comprehend. When the MRA talks about his ideas, most people only hear intellectual blabbering which they tune out in favor of the comforting noises of their mundane and meaningless cheap entertainment, the true opium of the sheeple.

Unfortunately, short of a successful eugenics program to skyrocket the average IQ to catch up with MRA IQs, there is nothing that can be done about this situation.

[Camicon]

It's because the MRM is too intellectualy challenging for most people.

It tries very hard to be a populist, rabble rousing movement. But being an MRA is an inherently intellectually refined place to argue from, and such populist efforts are inherently doomed to accomplish nothing other than to muddle the message and fail.

To become a MRA, it is not enough to reject feminist theory. Those who merely reject join the side of traditional conservative, dare I say patriarchy.

But the MRM is born from something different. Not just rejection, but actual understanding of feminism.

This in and of itself puts the MRM beyond the reach of at least 50% of the population. However, the MRA also, as a consequence of his understanding of feminism, understands and rejects the traditionalist ideologies. It may come as a surprise that this is a feat of intellectual firepower, but most people who profess traditionalist ideas fail to understand them. It is appropriate to call such people "sheeple", for they merely go where they are lead, believing what they hear from the media and at their churches.

This is why nobody seems to care about the MRM, to the overwhelming majority of the population, the very debate takes place on a plane too high to comprehend. When the MRA talks about his ideas, most people only hear intellectual blabbering which they tune out in favor of the comforting noises of their mundane and meaningless cheap entertainment, the true opium of the sheeple.

Unfortunately, short of a successful eugenics program to skyrocket the average IQ to catch up with MRA IQs, there is nothing that can be done about this situation.

Nothing can be done? Nonsense.

Large, coordinated media campaigns could raise the public's awareness of issues that men face. You don't need to understand feminism to understand that, if you apply an unbiased definition of rape, that men are raped at equal (or slightly higher) rates as women are.

The problem is that certain groups *coughcough* have done their damndest to strangle the MRM in it's crib. They haven't been successful so far, because the internet is a wonderful place, but they have successfully painted it as a fringe movement populated by lunatics and assholes. Tough to get people to listen to you, or give you money for awareness campaigns and lobbying efforts, when you've been wrongly made a pariah.

[La Cosa Fedora]

It's because the MRM is too intellectualy challenging for most people.

It tries very hard to be a populist, rabble rousing movement. But being an MRA is an inherently intellectually refined place to argue from, and such populist efforts are inherently doomed to accomplish nothing other than to muddle the message and fail.

To become a MRA, it is not enough to reject feminist theory. Those who merely reject join the side of traditional conservative, dare I say patriarchy.

But the MRM is born from something different. Not just rejection, but actual understanding of feminism.

This in and of itself puts the MRM beyond the reach of at least 50% of the population. However, the MRA also, as a consequence of his understanding of feminism, understands and rejects the traditionalist ideologies. It may come as a surprise that this is a feat of intellectual firepower, but most people who profess traditionalist ideas fail to understand them. It is appropriate to call such people "sheeple", for they merely go where they are lead, believing what they hear from the media and at their churches.

This is why nobody seems to care about the MRM, to the overwhelming majority of the population, the very debate takes place on a plane too high to comprehend. When the MRA talks about his ideas, most people only hear intellectual blabbering which they tune out in favor of the comforting noises of their mundane and meaningless cheap entertainment, the true opium of the sheeple.

Unfortunately, short of a successful eugenics program to skyrocket the average IQ to catch up with MRA IQs, there is nothing that can be done about this situation.

Nothing can be done? Nonsense.

Large, coordinated media campaigns could raise the public's awareness of issues that men face. You don't need to understand feminism to understand that, if you apply an unbiased definition of rape, that men are raped at equal (or slightly higher) rates as women are.

The problem is that certain groups *coughcough* have done their damndest to strangle the MRM in it's crib. They haven't been successful so far, because the internet is a wonderful place, but they have successfully painted it as a fringe movement populated by lunatics and assholes. Tough to get people to listen to you, or give you money for awareness campaigns and lobbying efforts, when you've been wrongly made a pariah.

And why has the villification campaign been such a resounding success?

Because most people are too intellectually inferior to comprehend or connect with MRM ideas, so they will believe simple and pretty lies every time.

[Des-Bal]

It's because the MRM is too intellectualy challenging for most people.

It tries very hard to be a populist, rabble rousing movement. But being an MRA is an inherently intellectually refined place to argue from, and such populist efforts are inherently doomed to accomplish nothing other than to muddle the message and fail.

To become a MRA, it is not enough to reject feminist theory. Those who merely reject join the side of traditional conservative, dare I say patriarchy.

But the MRM is born from something different. Not just rejection, but actual understanding of feminism.

This in and of itself puts the MRM beyond the reach of at least 50% of the population. However, the MRA also, as a consequence of his understanding of feminism, understands and rejects the traditionalist ideologies. It may come as a surprise that this is a feat of intellectual firepower, but most people who profess traditionalist ideas fail to understand them. It is appropriate to call such people "sheeple", for they merely go where they are lead, believing what they hear from the media and at their churches.

This is why nobody seems to care about the MRM, to the overwhelming majority of the population, the very debate takes place on a plane too high to comprehend. When the MRA talks about his ideas, most people only hear intellectual blabbering which they tune out in favor of the comforting noises of their mundane and meaningless cheap entertainment, the true opium of the sheeple.

Unfortunately, short of a successful eugenics program to skyrocket the average IQ to catch up with MRA IQs, there is nothing that can be done about this situation.

Imagining that opposition to your beliefs is best explained by the stupidity of half the planet, like masturbation, is undoubtedly pleasant and undoubtedly best done away from polite discussions. The MRM views itself as a reflection of feminism, particularly the worst parts of feminism, the parts that piss people off and drive hostile responses. People already get annoyed by hostile feminist rhetoric, it's why when you talk about gender equality most people go "sure" and when you talk about feminism most people go "nah." That is the problem with the MRM, sure there are blocks in place like the entrenchment of feminism making people skeptical of men's issues but the biggest issue is existing as a reactionary movement and coming from a place of anger.

[Chessmistress]

Because Men already have more rights than they probably should. They certainly have more privileged than women who they tend to scapegoat for all their perceived problems.

This. Basically.

You mean like the right to be drafted into brutal, bloody wars? Or how about the right to not be taken seriously as a rape victim? Or did you mean the right to be ignored when your wife beats you? There are just so many rights to choose from.

Those issues aren't caused by women, but by the patriarchy itself, that is meant to benefit men but have its downsides for them.
It's like having a lot of nuclear power plants and then complaining about some nuclear incidents. I know it's a tragedy, but who approved and built the power plants? Who benefitted from having a lot of cheap energy?

[La Cosa Fedora]

It's because the MRM is too intellectualy challenging for most people.

It tries very hard to be a populist, rabble rousing movement. But being an MRA is an inherently intellectually refined place to argue from, and such populist efforts are inherently doomed to accomplish nothing other than to muddle the message and fail.

To become a MRA, it is not enough to reject feminist theory. Those who merely reject join the side of traditional conservative, dare I say patriarchy.

But the MRM is born from something different. Not just rejection, but actual understanding of feminism.

This in and of itself puts the MRM beyond the reach of at least 50% of the population. However, the MRA also, as a consequence of his understanding of feminism, understands and rejects the traditionalist ideologies. It may come as a surprise that this is a feat of intellectual firepower, but most people who profess traditionalist ideas fail to understand them. It is appropriate to call such people "sheeple", for they merely go where they are lead, believing what they hear from the media and at their churches.

This is why nobody seems to care about the MRM, to the overwhelming majority of the population, the very debate takes place on a plane too high to comprehend. When the MRA talks about his ideas, most people only hear intellectual blabbering which they tune out in favor of the comforting noises of their mundane and meaningless cheap entertainment, the true opium of the sheeple.

Unfortunately, short of a successful eugenics program to skyrocket the average IQ to catch up with MRA IQs, there is nothing that can be done about this situation.

Imagining that opposition to your beliefs is best explained by the stupidity of half the planet, like masturbation, is undoubtedly pleasant and undoubtedly best done away from polite discussions. The MRM views itself as a reflection of feminism, particularly the worst parts of feminism, the parts that piss people off and drive hostile responses. People already get annoyed by hostile feminist rhetoric, it's why when you talk about gender equality most people go "sure" and when you talk about feminism most people go "nah." That is the problem with the MRM, sure there are blocks in place like the entrenchment of feminism making people skeptical of men's issues but the biggest issue is existing as a reactionary movement and coming from a place of anger.

No imagination here, purely facts. This is only one issue that proves the intellectual quality of actually over 90% of the population. Like eugenics itself.

Chances are, if you do not understand the need for eugenics, you are part of the problem.

[Camicon]

Nothing can be done? Nonsense.

Large, coordinated media campaigns could raise the public's awareness of issues that men face. You don't need to understand feminism to understand that, if you apply an unbiased definition of rape, that men are raped at equal (or slightly higher) rates as women are.

The problem is that certain groups *coughcough* have done their damndest to strangle the MRM in it's crib. They haven't been successful so far, because the internet is a wonderful place, but they have successfully painted it as a fringe movement populated by lunatics and assholes. Tough to get people to listen to you, or give you money for awareness campaigns and lobbying efforts, when you've been wrongly made a pariah.

And why has the villification campaign been such a resounding success?

Because most people are too intellectually inferior to comprehend or connect with MRM ideas, so they will believe simple and pretty lies every time.

It's been successful because feminism is well-established, well-monied, and is generally viewed very favourably by half (at least) of the population. They have power and influence at all levels of society. When the social narrative is framed as "feminism vs tradition", the possibility that feminism and traditional views on sex and gender might both be wrong, and be responsible for a plethora of problems that men face but society refuses to recognize, is excluded from the conversation without even being mentioned. It's not that people are "intellectually inferior", it's that they don't know enough to know to question the things that they see and are told.

Not having information and simply being unintelligent are two very different things.

[Des-Bal]

No imagination here, purely facts. This is only one issue that proves the intellectual quality of actually over 90% of the population. Like eugenics itself.

Chances are, if you do not understand the need for eugenics, you are part of the problem.

It's also possible that you have ridiculous beliefs and without the internal honesty to develop them or the imagination to construct justifications for them you imagine that you are smarter than everyone else.

[La Cosa Fedora]

And why has the villification campaign been such a resounding success?

Because most people are too intellectually inferior to comprehend or connect with MRM ideas, so they will believe simple and pretty lies every time.

It's been successful because feminism is well-established, well-monied, and is generally viewed very favourably by half (at least) of the population. They have power and influence at all levels of society. When the social narrative is framed as "feminism vs tradition", the possibility that feminism and traditional views on sex and gender might both be wrong, and be responsible for a plethora of problems that men face but society refuses to recognize, is excluded from the conversation without even being mentioned. It's not that people are "intellectually inferior", it's that they don't know enough to know to question the things that they see and are told.

Not having information and simply being unintelligent are two very different things.

You will find that the cognitive elite questions shoddy official narratives all the time, without such prompting.

Maybe a sufficiently large media campaign can change people's minds. But changing people's minds is hard enough anyway, and when your ideas just go above peoples heads, well you can lie to them, and that's about it. I am not exactly convinced by the historical track record of the noble lie, but maybe this time it'll work.

[La Cosa Fedora]

No imagination here, purely facts. This is only one issue that proves the intellectual quality of actually over 90% of the population. Like eugenics itself.

Chances are, if you do not understand the need for eugenics, you are part of the problem.

It's also possible that you have ridiculous beliefs and without the internal honesty to develop them or the imagination to construct justifications for them you imagine that you are smarter than everyone else.

I think that you over-estimate the intelligence of the masses. This is usually not a winning move, as it can lose money and elections, while the opposite does not.

[Ors Might]

You mean like the right to be drafted into brutal, bloody wars? Or how about the right to not be taken seriously as a rape victim? Or did you mean the right to be ignored when your wife beats you? There are just so many rights to choose from.

Those issues aren't caused by women, but by the patriarchy itself, that is meant to benefit men but have its downsides for them.
It's like having a lot of nuclear power plants and then complaining about some nuclear incidents. I know it's a tragedy, but who approved and built the power plants? Who benefitted from having a lot of cheap energy?

Who said that these issues are caused by women? This isn't a blame game. These problems remain unsolved regardless of what group caused them. Call it patriarchy or humanity's tendency to ignore suffering when convenient, the fact remains that men have issues that feminism has either ignored or done a piss poor job of addressing. Thus the need for a separate movement to advocate for men. Despite it's many problems, the MRM is a good start.

[Camicon]

It's been successful because feminism is well-established, well-monied, and is generally viewed very favourably by half (at least) of the population. They have power and influence at all levels of society. When the social narrative is framed as "feminism vs tradition", the possibility that feminism and traditional views on sex and gender might both be wrong, and be responsible for a plethora of problems that men face but society refuses to recognize, is excluded from the conversation without even being mentioned. It's not that people are "intellectually inferior", it's that they don't know enough to know to question the things that they see and are told.

Not having information and simply being unintelligent are two very different things.

You will find that the cognitive elite questions shoddy official narratives all the time, without such prompting.

"Cognitive elites".

Maybe a sufficiently large media campaign can change people's minds. But changing people's minds is hard enough anyway, and when your ideas just go above peoples heads, well you can lie to them, and that's about it. I am not exactly convinced by the historical track record of the noble lie, but maybe this time it'll work.

"Men are raped as often as women" is not a difficult concept to grasp. Nor is "chopping of part of a newborn boy's penis is wrong".

You underestimate people.

[Galloism]

Because Men already have more rights than they probably should. They certainly have more privileged than women who they tend to scapegoat for all their perceived problems.

This. Basically.

You mean like the right to be drafted into brutal, bloody wars? Or how about the right to not be taken seriously as a rape victim? Or did you mean the right to be ignored when your wife beats you? There are just so many rights to choose from.

Those issues aren't caused by women, but by the patriarchy itself, that is meant to benefit men but have its downsides for them.
It's like having a lot of nuclear power plants and then complaining about some nuclear incidents. I know it's a tragedy, but who approved and built the power plants? Who benefitted from having a lot of cheap energy?

Let's suppose I accept patriarchy theory. Why do you and your kind fight to support patriarchal ideas and ideals, as you've personally done repeatedly on this forum?