Betsy DeVos to meet with MRAs

[Calladan]

It's a lot harder for a man to rape a woman than it is for a woman to rape a man.

I'm not sure why it would be.

I think (and I am just guessing here) the assumption is if neither sex is turned on by the idea of being forced to have sex against their will, a man will have an advantage when forcing a woman (because they can get hard if they are turned on by the idea of forcing a woman to have sex against her will, and thus be able to insert the penis in the vagina) where as a woman will find it more difficult to get the man hard (in order for her to have him stick his penis into her).

That is, of course, assuming she is using HIS penis to penetrate HER. If there are other implements involved (which I will leave to your imagination) then none of what I just wrote really applies all that much.

Plus there is the potential problem that if you play with a guy's dick for long enough it will get hard whether he wants it to or not. But that is another matter, and not something I think we should really get into discussing at this point, especially on a forum that is supposed to be PG-13 because I am certain I am coming close to crossing that already.

(And please remember - everything above is literally all guess work since I have not made a study of how to rape men or women. Something you are all probably glad to know).

[Galloism]

I'm not sure why it would be.

I think (and I am just guessing here) the assumption is if neither sex is turned on by the idea of being forced to have sex against their will, a man will have an advantage when forcing a woman (because they can get hard if they are turned on by the idea of forcing a woman to have sex against her will, and thus be able to insert the penis in the vagina) where as a woman will find it more difficult to get the man hard (in order for her to have him stick his penis into her).

That is, of course, assuming she is using HIS penis to penetrate HER. If there are other implements involved (which I will leave to your imagination) then none of what I just wrote really applies all that much.

Plus there is the potential problem that if you play with a guy's dick for long enough it will get hard whether he wants it to or not. But that is another matter, and not something I think we should really get into discussing at this point, especially on a forum that is supposed to be PG-13 because I am certain I am coming close to crossing that already.

(And please remember - everything above is literally all guess work since I have not made a study of how to rape men or women. Something you are all probably glad to know).

Erections just don't work that way. You don't have to be "turned on" to have an erection. You can be asleep and have an erection without even dreaming. Certain drugs can induce an erection. Erection is also a physiological response to manual stimulation. Fear can also cause an erection (what is colloquially known as a "fear boner"). Pain can cause an erection. Excitement can cause an erection. Anxiety can cause an erection (it can also kill one - biology is weird).

Basically, almost any strong emotion can cause an erection - arousal or not. Even if there's no strong emotion, manual stimulation can cause one. And sometimes, they just happen for roughly no reason at all.

[Galloism]

That's called gender policing, and both men and women do it. It IS wrong. Women gender police more than men do according to current science, to both men AND women.

The thing is, when women do it we call it "internalized misogyny" - she's the victim. When men do it we call it "toxic masculinity" - it's his fault. And this is true even though women do it more than men do it.

Because, socially, we view women as objects and men as actors. And this is also true in the feminist narrative as well - maybe even moreso.

That's not an entirely unfair point to make.

No, it isn't. In fact, if you start analyzing things, you'll find we frame things that way entirely too much.

Look at an article about a male teacher having sex with an underage female student. You will find that he "raped her" multiple times (as is appropriate).

Then look at an article about a female teacher having sex with an underage male student. You will find that there was "an inappropriate relationship" or "he had sex multiple times with her" over and over again.

Why?

Men are actors. Women are objects. That's why.

Look at any domestic violence scenario. If a man hits a woman, people say "why would he do that?" If a woman hits a man, people say "what did he do to cause that?" In feminist terms, they say things like "patriarchal terrorism" and "reaction to previous violence" instead, but it's the same thing.

Men are actors. Women are objects. That's why.

It's time we stop that, but there are vested interests in keeping it that way, and unconscious biases are hard to correct: especially when the people who are supposed to be fighting against the bias are actually reinforcing it.

[Calladan]

I think (and I am just guessing here) the assumption is if neither sex is turned on by the idea of being forced to have sex against their will, a man will have an advantage when forcing a woman (because they can get hard if they are turned on by the idea of forcing a woman to have sex against her will, and thus be able to insert the penis in the vagina) where as a woman will find it more difficult to get the man hard (in order for her to have him stick his penis into her).

That is, of course, assuming she is using HIS penis to penetrate HER. If there are other implements involved (which I will leave to your imagination) then none of what I just wrote really applies all that much.

Plus there is the potential problem that if you play with a guy's dick for long enough it will get hard whether he wants it to or not. But that is another matter, and not something I think we should really get into discussing at this point, especially on a forum that is supposed to be PG-13 because I am certain I am coming close to crossing that already.

(And please remember - everything above is literally all guess work since I have not made a study of how to rape men or women. Something you are all probably glad to know).

Erections just don't work that way. You don't have to be "turned on" to have an erection. You can be asleep and have an erection without even dreaming. Certain drugs can induce an erection. Erection is also a physiological response to manual stimulation. Fear can also cause an erection (what is colloquially known as a "fear boner"). Pain can cause an erection. Excitement can cause an erection. Anxiety can cause an erection (it can also kill one - biology is weird).

Basically, almost any strong emotion can cause an erection - arousal or not. Even if there's no strong emotion, manual stimulation can cause one. And sometimes, they just happen for roughly no reason at all.

In my defence, I did say I was just guessing

[Pope Joan]

When we start saying that men should not have rights recognized because they don't need that, since they are men which means they have social power,

then we've gone too far.

And this is what I am hearing some people espouse on Public Broadcasting.

[Anti-Faminism]

You know, I've never heard a girl (or a male bottom) who got raped at a party or something ever say anything to that end.

I suggest you look over this case - the first of its kind from last year.

For balance, here's an editorial piece on drunk sex and another article where Joe Biden specifically states sex with drunk women is rape no matter the circumstances - of course, both assume only women are raped (as is typical). It requires a sexist position to try and be even marginally consistent regarding drunk sex being rape.

Incapacitated sex is rape, but if drunk sex is rape, either you be specifically and avowedly sexist, or mutual rape is common.

Usually it's something along the lines of "he held me down", but whatever floats your bullshit boat, I guess. It's quite unfortunate, because false accusers and men being trapped in abusive relationships and the like are all issues that deserved concerned advocates, not ones who tell rape victims "well you were drunk, so it's as much your fault as it was his." It's a damn slippery slope from there to whipping out tape measures to check a girl's skirt when she comes in for a rape kit. Sadly, it seems quite typical in every MRA type I've encountered on NS, and now you too.

To quote the President- Sad!

Actually, I'm not sure what percentage involve physical force in a college setting. The civil rights person said 90% involved no physical force, but like I said, that is probably not accurate. Point is, Joe Biden stated, the Dear Colleague Letter implied, and the editorials agree, drunk sex with no force is rape - of the woman, even if the man is just as drunk as she is. This was the push of the Obama administration.

And no, it doesn't mean "whipping out tape measures". It means we need to stop being fucking sexist in how we approach rape. I know sexism is "mainstream", and people reflexively support it, but I'm against sexism in the approach to rape, and I would hope you would be too. Too bad, I guess.

Well said.

[Galloism]

Regarding the topic....

Time article was predictably talking from feminist talking points (which are misleading at best and downright fraudulent at worst), but there were demands to listen to the victims of sexual assault. So let's.

Jonathon Andrews — who said he was falsely accused of sexual assault by two members of his Hanover College fraternity in 2015, after one of them sexually assaulted him — participated in one of the three meetings DeVos held Thursday. “It was very uplifting to me. It was a moment where you felt like you were finally being seen," he said. "Just to meet with somebody and show them that we’re human meant a lot."

So who should we listen to? Victim or falsely accused? What about when they're the same guy?

And there we go.

[Liriena]

Regarding the topic....

Time article was predictably talking from feminist talking points (which are misleading at best and downright fraudulent at worst), but there were demands to listen to the victims of sexual assault. So let's.

Jonathon Andrews — who said he was falsely accused of sexual assault by two members of his Hanover College fraternity in 2015, after one of them sexually assaulted him — participated in one of the three meetings DeVos held Thursday. “It was very uplifting to me. It was a moment where you felt like you were finally being seen," he said. "Just to meet with somebody and show them that we’re human meant a lot."

So who should we listen to? Victim or falsely accused? What about when they're the same guy?

And there we go.

Andrews, 23, works with Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE), a nonprofit group that advocates to lawmakers and university officials for the due process rights of those accused of sexual assault. The group was labeled misogynistic by the Southern Poverty Law Center after it published a set of "key facts" about domestic violence that said "female initiation of partner violence is the leading reason for the woman becoming a victim of subsequent injury."

Oooooookay.

I will say, I have to lean in favor of those who are apprehensive about DeVos meeting with these people, not because of that paragraph, but because there is a legitimate point in that sexual violence is already severely underreported with current policies. If you strip down said policies for the sake of the falsely accused, you are pretty much trading one injustice for another.

[Galloism]

Regarding the topic....

Time article was predictably talking from feminist talking points (which are misleading at best and downright fraudulent at worst), but there were demands to listen to the victims of sexual assault. So let's.



So who should we listen to? Victim or falsely accused? What about when they're the same guy?

And there we go.

Andrews, 23, works with Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE), a nonprofit group that advocates to lawmakers and university officials for the due process rights of those accused of sexual assault. The group was labeled misogynistic by the Southern Poverty Law Center after it published a set of "key facts" about domestic violence that said "female initiation of partner violence is the leading reason for the woman becoming a victim of subsequent injury."

Oooooookay.

Yeah I have no idea about the truth of that claim or not. Its sufficiently crouched to make it really hard to prove or disprove absolutely.

I'm skeptical of it, but when you realize roughly half of domestic abusers are female and most DV is reciprocal, it's not a completely crazy notion.

I will say, I have to lean in favor of those who are apprehensive about DeVos meeting with these people, not because of that paragraph, but because there is a legitimate point in that sexual violence is already severely underreported with current policies. If you strip down said policies for the sake of the falsely accused, you are pretty much trading one injustice for another.

Not really. Lack of good procedures hurts victims and accused both (as in the above case, where the accused asserts he was actually the victim). Failure to have good standards of evidence not only results in wrongfully accused people getting expelled, but victims getting expelled when their perpetrator accuses them.

Combine that with the fact that readmission to any college is extremely difficult when expelled, no matter how sketchy the result, and we're talking about excluding people from higher education entirely in a procedure where there's a mandated 49% margin of error.

[Liriena]

Andrews, 23, works with Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE), a nonprofit group that advocates to lawmakers and university officials for the due process rights of those accused of sexual assault. The group was labeled misogynistic by the Southern Poverty Law Center after it published a set of "key facts" about domestic violence that said "female initiation of partner violence is the leading reason for the woman becoming a victim of subsequent injury."

Oooooookay.

Yeah I have no idea about the truth of that claim or not. Its sufficiently crouched to make it really hard to prove or disprove absolutely.

I'm skeptical of it, but when you realize roughly half of domestic abusers are female and most DV is reciprocal, it's not a completely crazy notion.

I will say, I have to lean in favor of those who are apprehensive about DeVos meeting with these people, not because of that paragraph, but because there is a legitimate point in that sexual violence is already severely underreported with current policies. If you strip down said policies for the sake of the falsely accused, you are pretty much trading one injustice for another.

Not really. Lack of good procedures hurts victims and accused both (as in the above case, where the accused asserts he was actually the victim). Failure to have good standards of evidence not only results in wrongfully accused people getting expelled, but victims getting expelled when their perpetrator accuses them.

Combine that with the fact that readmission to any college is extremely difficult when expelled, no matter how sketchy the result, and we're talking about excluding people from higher education entirely in a procedure where there's a mandated 49% margin of error.

Good point. But that being the case, what are we to do?

[Galloism]

Yeah I have no idea about the truth of that claim or not. Its sufficiently crouched to make it really hard to prove or disprove absolutely.

I'm skeptical of it, but when you realize roughly half of domestic abusers are female and most DV is reciprocal, it's not a completely crazy notion.


Not really. Lack of good procedures hurts victims and accused both (as in the above case, where the accused asserts he was actually the victim). Failure to have good standards of evidence not only results in wrongfully accused people getting expelled, but victims getting expelled when their perpetrator accuses them.

Combine that with the fact that readmission to any college is extremely difficult when expelled, no matter how sketchy the result, and we're talking about excluding people from higher education entirely in a procedure where there's a mandated 49% margin of error.

Good point. But that being the case, what are we to do?

Well, ideally, I'd like the police to handle crimes.

However, if colleges are to hold proceedings like this, use the same standard of evidence used when you are accused of supergluing the Dean's wig to the clock tower:

Clear and convincing evidence (75% sure)

Then, just like when you're accused of supergluing the Dean's wig to the clock tower, you should be allowed to present evidence and witness testimony regarding your innocence. You should also be allowed (but not provided) an attorney, just like when being accused of such an aforementioned supergluing incident.

[Kanadorika]

The problem is that they make the classic mistake: if a man and woman are equally drunk and have sex, he raped her.

Because penis.

It's funny, I used to think you were perhaps the only MRA type on NSG with a sense of moderation and sensibility- now we appear to be suggesting that it's unfair to accuse men of rape if both parties to an act were drunk? Hopefully if I'm dating some fuckboi in college he won't have a similar mindset.

I personally don't find someone who voluntarily intoxicated themselves as being free from all consequences they may face as a result of their actions.

If you drink and drive and kill someone, you have committed an act of manslaughter. If you drink and consent to sex, even if you are drunk, it's still consensual.

[Neutraligon]

Depending on the MRA I find this a good thing (and would say the same thing about depending on the feminist organization). It is about time that men's rights got some representation in school.

[Liriena]

Good point. But that being the case, what are we to do?

Well, ideally, I'd like the police to handle crimes.

However, if colleges are to hold proceedings like this, use the same standard of evidence used when you are accused of supergluing the Dean's wig to the clock tower:

Clear and convincing evidence (75% sure)

Then, just like when you're accused of supergluing the Dean's wig to the clock tower, you should be allowed to present evidence and witness testimony regarding your innocence. You should also be allowed (but not provided) an attorney, just like when being accused of such an aforementioned supergluing incident.

But the problem of underreporting remains. What can we do to encourage more survivors of campus sexual violence to report?

[Galloism]

Well, ideally, I'd like the police to handle crimes.

However, if colleges are to hold proceedings like this, use the same standard of evidence used when you are accused of supergluing the Dean's wig to the clock tower:

Clear and convincing evidence (75% sure)

Then, just like when you're accused of supergluing the Dean's wig to the clock tower, you should be allowed to present evidence and witness testimony regarding your innocence. You should also be allowed (but not provided) an attorney, just like when being accused of such an aforementioned supergluing incident.

But the problem of underreporting remains. What can we do to encourage more survivors of campus sexual violence to report?

Well, for starters, you need to define what consent means, and this means defining it well, in a gender neutral fashion. You also need to define rape well and in a gender neutral fashion. You also need to get those definitions out there to the students so they know what is, and is not, sexual assault. That's a beginning.

Given the biggest underreporters are men, that PSA needs an extra level of targeting at young men, who may not realize they even can be sexually assaulted.

Also: we need to stop saying 1 in 4 women are raped in college. 1 in 4 women suffered some kind of contact ranging from rape to an unwanted drunken kiss. It just doesn't sound as good when you put it that way. There is an underreporter problem, but not the one you hear about.

[Costa Fierro]

Been there, done that, and the conclusion I derived from my explorations was: cesspools, the lot of them. Contempt, resentment and poorly addressed sexual insecurity masquerading as philosophies.

So you didn't actually examine any of these groups at all and just went by what other feminists and feminist media said about them? That does not surprise me one bit. In fact it almost looks like you didn't do any research at all but decided to entrench yourself in your already prejudiced beliefs and decided to justify them by regarding them as nothing but sexually insecure virgins who can't get laid to save themselves.

That's not research, that's just standard feminist shaming tactics. So actually do some research.

Oh, and a whole lot of actual, unironic dehumanization of women.

When society dehumanizes you from birth, you start seeing the world through a different lens.

Yes, men can be and are raped. And in this still profoundly sexist society we live in, the rape of men is still often dismissed as a concern, when not treated like something laughable. It sucks, and it doesn't help one bit that, on top of the culturally ingrained chauvinism that already is a huge obstacle to male victims of sexual violence, some feminist circles further add to those obstacles with their own dismissive, if not outright hostile attitude towards male victims of sexual violence.

Then that makes you a decent person. I can respect that.

Sure, sure. It's all defensive aggression and contempt towards feminists.

Which is no different to the defensive aggression and contempt shown towards us, as you have routinely demonstrated. Of course, I understand why Western feminists would be scared of MRA's, because they are advocating for proper legal gender equality and the removal of female legal privilege in certain aspects of criminal and social law. Men resisted calls made by feminism for suffrage, parental rights and other things that second wave feminism successfully fought for. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, women are realizing that they have a privileged position within the legal system and therefore any attempts to change it present a direct threat to that privilege, hence why there is so much resistance and shaming of MRA's.

[Liriena]

Been there, done that, and the conclusion I derived from my explorations was: cesspools, the lot of them. Contempt, resentment and poorly addressed sexual insecurity masquerading as philosophies.

So you didn't actually examine any of these groups at all and just went by what other feminists and feminist media said about them?

Wrong. I actually did examine these groups. I read and heard what their members and prominent figures had to say. And from that, I derived my conclusions. With that in mind, I'll take the liberty of dismissing the rest of your paragraph, specially since you are blatantly putting words in my mouth and making baseless, prejudiced accusations in it.

Oh, and a whole lot of actual, unironic dehumanization of women.

When society dehumanizes you from birth, you start seeing the world through a different lens.

Even if true, that doesn't excuse dehumanizing others. You perceiving yourself as a victim does not give you carte blanche to mistreat others.

Sure, sure. It's all defensive aggression and contempt towards feminists.

Which is no different to the defensive aggression and contempt shown towards us, as you have routinely demonstrated. Of course, I understand why Western feminists would be scared of MRA's, because they are advocating for proper legal gender equality and the removal of female legal privilege in certain aspects of criminal and social law. Men resisted calls made by feminism for suffrage, parental rights and other things that second wave feminism successfully fought for. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, women are realizing that they have a privileged position within the legal system and therefore any attempts to change it present a direct threat to that privilege, hence why there is so much resistance and shaming of MRA's.

Wrong. I don't feel threatened by MRAs advocacy for bringing an end to unjust conventions and policies that negatively affect men. What concerns me is that I see very little truly critical and emancipatory content in many MRA circles, and an awful lot of vindictive contrarianism instead. I see a lot of advocacy for legal reforms, which is arguably parallel to liberal feminism, and that's good... but it worries me that there doesn't seem to be a truly critical and emancipatory body of theoretical work, a theoretical framework. Proportionally speaking, how many within the MRA movement go beyond criticizing legal inequality and actually subject fundamental ideas like gender and masculinity to a critical analysis? Are there MRA gender abolitionists? What are the MRA gender theories? How do you define gender? Do you historically contextualize gender? Do you consider masculinity to be essential or performative? Do you see masculinity as biological, universal, cultural...?

[Galloism]

I read and heard what their members and prominent figures had to say. And from that, I derived my conclusions.

Inquiring minds want to know - which members where? Where did you go to do this research?

but it worries me that there doesn't seem to be a truly critical and emancipatory body of theoretical work, a theoretical framework.

Yeah, there wasn't a lot of that during the time of the suffragettes either - when they were seeking basic legal equity. You gotta get the basic obvious legal equality before you can branch out into such theoretical long term frameworks.

[Liriena]

I read and heard what their members and prominent figures had to say. And from that, I derived my conclusions.

Inquiring minds want to know - which members where? Where did you go to do this research?

Let's keep in mind that I'm specifically talking about incels, redpillers, MGTOW and PUA, not MRAs. I'm well aware that all these groups generally reject one another.

With that said... I went on Reddit and Youtube. Read what redditors had to say in the subreddits dedicated to each of those groups, and heard what some Youtubers of the so-called "manosphere" had to say.

Of course, I am definitely biased, and my sampling and perceptions might have been out of whack because of it.

but it worries me that there doesn't seem to be a truly critical and emancipatory body of theoretical work, a theoretical framework.

Yeah, there wasn't a lot of that during the time of the suffragettes either - when they were seeking basic legal equity. You gotta get the basic obvious legal equality before you can branch out into such theoretical long term frameworks.

That's like saying that the Islamic world's problems are due to them not reaching the Enlightenment age yet, implying that they had a "late start" or are somehow "slower" in following an established path.

It's 2017. Foucault has already come and gone, and you have no small amount of tools at your disposal. You could even argue that MRAs have an easier job ahead of them since most of the heavy lifting in gender studies has already been done.

[Costa Fierro]

Wrong. I actually did examine these groups.

Really now? So the shaming of them by calling them sexually insecure and other insults is indicative of a wide range of research?

I read and heard what their members and prominent figures had to say. And from that, I derived my conclusions.

As Galloism said, where did you go? Who did you listen to? What did you read?

With that in mind, I'll take the liberty of dismissing the rest of your paragraph, specially since you are blatantly putting words in my mouth and making baseless, prejudiced accusations in it.

How ironic.

Even if true, that doesn't excuse dehumanizing others. You perceiving yourself as a victim does not give you carte blanche to mistreat others.

Then perhaps those words would be better served your fellow feminists than they would be to me.

I don't feel threatened by MRAs advocacy for bringing an end to unjust conventions and policies that negatively affect men.

Because you are a man. You don't stand to lose anything. What MRA's are advocating for in the broad sense would ultimately benefit you.

What concerns me is that I see very little truly critical and emancipatory content in many MRA circles, and an awful lot of vindictive contrarianism instead.

Because MRA's have to fight to get men's issues recognised by governments and by society as legitimate, let alone actually fight for and achieve legal inequality. As Galloism said, there wasn't a lot of time for theoretical and emancipatory work during the suffragette movement either, because they were fighting for basic rights and legal equality.

Proportionally speaking, how many within the MRA movement go beyond criticizing legal inequality and actually subject fundamental ideas like gender and masculinity to a critical analysis?

None, because MRA's are having to fight for the recognition of men's issues and rights. Even that has not been achieved. They can't worry about issues like gender and masculinity when legal discrimination exists and needs to be stopped.

Are there MRA gender abolitionists? What are the MRA gender theories? How do you define gender? Do you historically contextualize gender? Do you consider masculinity to be essential or performative? Do you see masculinity as biological, universal, cultural...?

The MRA movement has not come up with any such theories because at the current movement, such theories are irrelevant to the movement, because it focuses on current, pressing, legal discrimination and inequality. Criticizing the MRA movement for not focusing on something that currently does not affect them in a tangible manner is like criticizing feminism for not focusing on animal rights.

[Liriena]

and heard what some Youtubers of the so-called "manosphere" had to say.

To be more specific, I'm talking of Youtubers ranging from MrRepzion, Sargon of Akkad and Thunderf00t to Red pill philosophy, Davis Aurini and Roosh V.

[Costa Fierro]

and heard what some Youtubers of the so-called "manosphere" had to say.

To be more specific, I'm talking of Youtubers ranging from MrRepzion, Sargon of Akkad and Thunderf00t to Red pill philosophy, Davis Aurini and Roosh V.

Do you think they represent MGTOW's, incels and others?

[Galloism]

Inquiring minds want to know - which members where? Where did you go to do this research?

Let's keep in mind that I'm specifically talking about incels, redpillers, MGTOW and PUA, not MRAs. I'm well aware that all these groups generally reject one another.

With that said... I went on Reddit and Youtube. Read what redditors had to say in the subreddits dedicated to each of those groups, and heard what some Youtubers of the so-called "manosphere" had to say.

Of course, I am definitely biased, and my sampling and perceptions might have been out of whack because of it.

So you investigated MRAs by... looking at a bunch of groups that aren't MRAs?

Imagine bizarro world you who told you they investigated feminism by looking up communists, black lives matter protesters, political separatist lesbians, and univesal health care advocates, and so bizarro world you has an opinion on feminism.

Would you find that super valid as an opinion?

Yeah, there wasn't a lot of that during the time of the suffragettes either - when they were seeking basic legal equity. You gotta get the basic obvious legal equality before you can branch out into such theoretical long term frameworks.

That's like saying that the Islamic world's problems are due to them not reaching the Enlightenment age yet, implying that they had a "late start" or are somehow "slower" in following an established path.

It's 2017. Foucault has already come and gone, and you have no small amount of tools at your disposal. You could even argue that MRAs have an easier job ahead of them since most of the heavy lifting in gender studies has already been done.

Actually, it's harder, namely because the suffragettes mostly only had to deal with anti-suffragettes, none of which claimed to be the ultimate moral authority on gender issues. The attitude of the government was not hostile - merely dismissive/indifferent.

Now, feminism, as a movement, has established itself as the ultimate moral authority on gender issues, and, as a movement, viciously attacks any attempt to look at how the male gender role harms men, or legal inequity men face, etc. The government is also generally openly hostile to men's issues or the legal inequity men face (this is the first time the government has even deigned to hear out one of these groups, and they had to share the floor with groups that specifically try to whitewash men's victimization out of existence). And you know what happened?

They freaked. They had to actually share the floor with other people who see things differently? The horror.

[Liriena]

Wrong. I actually did examine these groups.

Really now? So the shaming of them by calling them sexually insecure and other insults is indicative of a wide range of research?

On which specific posts of mine are you basing that question?

I read and heard what their members and prominent figures had to say. And from that, I derived my conclusions.

As Galloism said, where did you go? Who did you listen to? What did you read?

Already answered.

With that in mind, I'll take the liberty of dismissing the rest of your paragraph, specially since you are blatantly putting words in my mouth and making baseless, prejudiced accusations in it.

How ironic.

I kind of want to ask where the irony is...

Even if true, that doesn't excuse dehumanizing others. You perceiving yourself as a victim does not give you carte blanche to mistreat others.

Then perhaps those words would be better served your fellow feminists than they would be to me.

How about I apply them to both of you? I can do that. I'll apply that criticism to any feminists who actually dehumanize men and to any men who dehumanize women.

So, with that established, what other excuses do you have for the dehumanization of women?

I don't feel threatened by MRAs advocacy for bringing an end to unjust conventions and policies that negatively affect men.

Because you are a man. You don't stand to lose anything. What MRA's are advocating for in the broad sense would ultimately benefit you.

That sounds a bit sexist. Are you implying that, were I a woman, I would necessarily feel threatened by your advocacy?

What concerns me is that I see very little truly critical and emancipatory content in many MRA circles, and an awful lot of vindictive contrarianism instead.

Because MRA's have to fight to get men's issues recognised by governments and by society as legitimate, let alone actually fight for and achieve legal inequality. As Galloism said, there wasn't a lot of time for theoretical and emancipatory work during the suffragette movement either, because they were fighting for basic rights and legal equality.

You are not fighting for something as basic as voting rights, though, and this isn't the early 20th century anymore.

Proportionally speaking, how many within the MRA movement go beyond criticizing legal inequality and actually subject fundamental ideas like gender and masculinity to a critical analysis?

None, because MRA's are having to fight for the recognition of men's issues and rights. Even that has not been achieved. They can't worry about issues like gender and masculinity when legal discrimination exists and needs to be stopped.

Yeah... I'm not sure I'm buying that. You are not fighting against a broad, systematic, brutal repression or a tyrannical sociopolitical system in which you don't even get to vote. This is not an existential threat to the entire male gender, in my opinion, and there is no shortage of resources out there.

The reason for my line of inquiry is that, if this is the current state of MRA discourse, then it may be practically impossible to articulate MRA advocacy with other movements. One of the virtues of some variants of feminism is that their application of critical theory makes it possible to articulate them with racial and economic justice movements, for example, with a modicum of logical consistency. With the way MRA advocacy seems to frame itself right now, it looks very limited in its reach and its capacity as an emancipatory movement.

That doesn't make it bad in and of itself, but it may ultimately carry the same problems that liberal feminism often does.

Are there MRA gender abolitionists? What are the MRA gender theories? How do you define gender? Do you historically contextualize gender? Do you consider masculinity to be essential or performative? Do you see masculinity as biological, universal, cultural...?

The MRA movement has not come up with any such theories because at the current movement, such theories are irrelevant to the movement, because it focuses on current, pressing, legal discrimination and inequality. Criticizing the MRA movement for not focusing on something that currently does not affect them in a tangible manner is like criticizing feminism for not focusing on animal rights.

Except that stuff does affect them in a tangible manner, most likely being the fundamental causes of most problems that MRAs aim to solve.

Gallo talks a lot about how much feminist rhetoric is biologically reductive and sexist when it comes to how it perceives men, particularly when it comes to matters of sexual assault. Such being the case, I'd argue it's indispensable for there to be a clear, cohesive narrative on gender and masculinity that can tackle the very core of that sexist and reductive rhetoric.

[Liriena]

To be more specific, I'm talking of Youtubers ranging from MrRepzion, Sargon of Akkad and Thunderf00t to Red pill philosophy, Davis Aurini and Roosh V.

Do you think they represent MGTOW's, incels and others?

Yes, but I understand that, since I am not actually involved in those circles, there might be nuances that escape me. Thus, me misunderstanding what they each represent is quite possible.