Betsy DeVos to meet with MRAs

[Liriena]

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?

No. I investigated incels, redpillers, MGTOW and PUAs by looking at a bunch of groups that are that. At no point did I claim or intend to suggest that all those groups were interchangeable with MRAs. What I did say, early in the thread, was that I wondered whether some of the people who spoke with DeVos might have been contributors of the subreddits associated with incels, redpillers and MGTOW. It was mostly snark on my part, mixed with a bit of genuine concern.

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?

No, but as you'll have seen above, that's not the sort of thing I did.

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.

Also, they apparently freaked because there is an understandable concern, even if you might consider it misguided, that the opposing perspective in question could lead to policies that would exacerbate the problem of underreported and impune sexual violence. Plus, I imagine that part of the negative reaction might be rooted in fears (reasonable or unreasonable) of sexual violence against women being minimized through whataboutism by people with ulterior motives. Mind you, as far as reactions to that sort of perceived danger go, I don't think it's helpful in any way.

[Galloism]

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

No. I investigated incels, redpillers, MGTOW and PUAs by looking at a bunch of groups that are that. At no point did I claim or intend to suggest that all those groups were interchangeable with MRAs. What I did say, early in the thread, was that I wondered whether some of the people who spoke with DeVos might have been contributors of the subreddits associated with incels, redpillers and MGTOW. It was mostly snark on my part, mixed with a bit of genuine concern.

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?

No, but as you'll have seen above, that's not the sort of thing I did.

Ok, so you have no opinion on MRAs then. That's fair.

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.

Also, they apparently freaked because there is an understandable concern, even if you might consider it misguided, that the opposing perspective in question could lead to policies that would exacerbate the problem of underreported and impune sexual violence. Plus, I imagine that part of the negative reaction might be rooted in fears (reasonable or unreasonable) of sexual violence against women being minimized through whataboutism by people with ulterior motives. Mind you, as far as reactions to that sort of perceived danger go, I don't think it's helpful in any way.

There's a lot of reactionary paranoia out of these feminist groups - I will agree with you there. The question is whether they truly don't have any fucking clue what they're talking about, or if it's a more cynical tactic to marginalize anyone who might tear away the stranglehold they have on the narrative of pure innocent women being preyed on by evil monster men.

I'm not sure, and barring a mind reading device, I might never know. However, the ultimate solution is still the same.

They are hurting the cause of equality by injecting pseudointellectual sexist bullshit into the dialogue which gets lapped up by the general public because it agrees with their preconceived notions of men as actors and women as objects. Their stranglehold on such dialogue needs to be removed. There needs to be opposing viewpoints or we can't have a reasoned debate on how to proceed.

[Liriena]

No. I investigated incels, redpillers, MGTOW and PUAs by looking at a bunch of groups that are that. At no point did I claim or intend to suggest that all those groups were interchangeable with MRAs. What I did say, early in the thread, was that I wondered whether some of the people who spoke with DeVos might have been contributors of the subreddits associated with incels, redpillers and MGTOW. It was mostly snark on my part, mixed with a bit of genuine concern.


No, but as you'll have seen above, that's not the sort of thing I did.

Ok, so you have no opinion on MRAs then. That's fair.

In and of themselves, the generally agreed upon goals of the MRA movement are fine with me, or at least as fine with me as the generally agreed upon goals of liberal feminism are. Much like with liberal feminism, though, I do have general criticisms, which I've already made, and specific criticisms reserved for specific individuals and groups within the MRA movement. I have concerns, but they are definitely minor compared to my concerns regarding those other groups.

Also, they apparently freaked because there is an understandable concern, even if you might consider it misguided, that the opposing perspective in question could lead to policies that would exacerbate the problem of underreported and impune sexual violence. Plus, I imagine that part of the negative reaction might be rooted in fears (reasonable or unreasonable) of sexual violence against women being minimized through whataboutism by people with ulterior motives. Mind you, as far as reactions to that sort of perceived danger go, I don't think it's helpful in any way.

There's a lot of reactionary paranoia out of these feminist groups - I will agree with you there. The question is whether they truly don't have any fucking clue what they're talking about, or if it's a more cynical tactic to marginalize anyone who might tear away the stranglehold they have on the narrative of pure innocent women being preyed on by evil monster men.

I'm not sure, and barring a mind reading device, I might never know. However, the ultimate solution is still the same.

They are hurting the cause of equality by injecting pseudointellectual sexist bullshit into the dialogue which gets lapped up by the general public because it agrees with their preconceived notions of men as actors and women as objects. Their stranglehold on such dialogue needs to be removed. There needs to be opposing viewpoints or we can't have a reasoned debate on how to proceed.

Can't say I disagree with you there.

[Costa Fierro]

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.

Quite. For all intents and purposes, it's not exactly true. I can only speak for MGTOW's at least (or at least on my behalf), but they don't necessarily represent the arguments made by MGTOW's or incels or others. Not only that, but many people within the Red Pill and elsewhere within that specific part of the manosphere tend to sort of either look down on other groups or act with outright hostility to them.

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

The ones where you refer to MRA's and other groups related to them as "sexually insecure". Shaming men for their lack of sexual exploits or other aspects of their sexuality is a fairly common tactic not necessarily exclusive to Western feminism but one largely used by Western feminists to attack their enemies. It serves the purpose of framing their enemies as "sexual deviants" and to keep other men in line or at least quiet out of fear of being seen to agree with said "sexual deviants".

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

You acted with prejudice against MRA's and made baseless accusations without actually knowing what they were.

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.

And where do I dehumanize women?

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

Where is the evidence that I do?

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

If you were a woman and you were a feminist and aware of what was at stake, sure. Most women aren't aware of or don't care.

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

No, we're instead voting to have male rape legally recognized as a crime, to have legal parental rights, to have legal paternal leave, to have legal reproductive rights.

Yeah... I'm not sure I'm buying that.

Of course not. This is what feminism does to you: it paints a picture of society where women are always the victim of some form of discrimination no matter what.

This is not an existential threat to the entire male gender, in my opinion, and there is no shortage of resources out there.

No shortage of resources for what?

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.

This may be a good thing. It keeps an ideology pure and results in less division and less infighting and disagreements if everyone is more or less on the same page with what needs to be achieved and how it needs to be done.

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.

I don't think that's a virtue, I think it's something that bogs an ideology or a movement down in needless theoretical discussions about how certain groups can get represented. It takes the focus away from what the movement is supposed to be about and results in divisions between people who disagree with the inclusion of others.

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.

Because the emancipatory element is already includes in it's colour blind nature. By virtue it recognizes that all men are discriminated against in the West by society and by the legal system and wants to eradicate that discrimination. It doesn't make any racial distinctions because all men of all races in the West suffer from the same sex based discrimination. Men already have specific movements for their rights as part of ethnic groups, like BLM in the United States. That doesn't need MRA support.

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

No it isn't. Although this isn't necessarily an MRA argument, it is an MGTOW argument but it applies. Society doesn't view men as inherently valuable, that's why we're forced to go to war, to do dangerous jobs. Our value within society is based on our usefulness to society and what we can provide. A man's value is not in himself or his values but in how much he can provide, that being related to his wealth, is income and his job. Women have inherent value through the virtue of bringing children into this world.

Men are also expected to sacrifice themselves for the greater good too. That's why society entrenches these beliefs in legal discrimination, it allows the state to legally enforce societal beliefs. Gender doesn't come into this because men are held to different standards than women and addressing the legal discrimination would at least be a step in the right direction.

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.

I'd argue it'd be indispensable for men to have themselves legally recognized as rape victims before we get into any discussions about gender theories.

[Liriena]

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.

Quite. For all intents and purposes, it's not exactly true. I can only speak for MGTOW's at least (or at least on my behalf), but they don't necessarily represent the arguments made by MGTOW's or incels or others. Not only that, but many people within the Red Pill and elsewhere within that specific part of the manosphere tend to sort of either look down on other groups or act with outright hostility to them.

Fair enough.

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

The ones where you refer to MRA's and other groups related to them as "sexually insecure". Shaming men for their lack of sexual exploits or other aspects of their sexuality is a fairly common tactic not necessarily exclusive to Western feminism but one largely used by Western feminists to attack their enemies. It serves the purpose of framing their enemies as "sexual deviants" and to keep other men in line or at least quiet out of fear of being seen to agree with said "sexual deviants".

But which posts, specifically? Also, I made no mention of any "lack of sexual exploits".

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

You acted with prejudice against MRA's and made baseless accusations without actually knowing what they were.

Not sure I did, though, but okay.

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.

And where do I dehumanize women?

Wrong pronouns. Should have spoken in third person. I'm not sure I can safely argue that you specifically dehumanize women, even if you are making excuses for the men who do so, and I worry I'd end up stretching to prove something that's besides the point.

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

Where is the evidence that I do?

You literally argued that the dehumanization of women was a reaction to the alleged dehumanization of men. Not even a perfunctory condemnation, but a direct attempt to shift responsibility.

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

[url]If you were a woman and you were a feminist and aware of what was at stake, sure.[/url] Most women aren't aware of or don't care.

You do realize that you are speaking about millions of women, and you are assuming that they are all in on this hidden agenda and would react the same way... right?

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

No, we're instead voting to have male rape legally recognized as a crime, to have legal parental rights, to have legal paternal leave, to have legal reproductive rights.

Which in practical terms isn't the human rights fight of the century, even if it is arguably necessary.

Yeah... I'm not sure I'm buying that.

Of course not. This is what feminism does to you: it paints a picture of society where women are always the victim of some form of discrimination no matter what.

No, but I do appreciate the underlying implication that feminism has "done" something to me. All that's missing is a "wake up, sheeple".

This is not an existential threat to the entire male gender, in my opinion, and there is no shortage of resources out there.

No shortage of resources for what?

To produce a clear, cohesive critical and emancipatory theory, or set of theories, that you can use as a framework for your advocacy.

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.

This may be a good thing. It keeps an ideology pure and results in less division and less infighting and disagreements if everyone is more or less on the same page with what needs to be achieved and how it needs to be done.

That sounds rather authoritarian, irresponsible and intellectually dishonest. You stiffle inner debate, which is often necessary as circumstances change around your ideology, and close the doors to interactions with outside forces which might enrich your ideology and give it tools to be more effective in practice. You run the risk of fossilizing your movement for the sake of ideological purity and unity.

You can't honestly separate a movement for gender equality from other social, racial, economic, cultural and political struggles, because they are all in some way interconnected. This was precisely one of the big problems many feminist authors observed within their own movement over the course of the 20th century: some variants of feminism had become too preoccupied with finding and preserving some sort of fundamental essence to their movement, and had completely ignored factors that exceeded the scope of this essence. For instance, the specific struggles of black women exceeded the scope of mainstream and academic feminist variants, since their "essence" had been built around the presumption that the experiences and perspectives of white middle and upper class women could be extrapolated into universal principles.

What you are proposing is like saying you want to sail on a large sailboat, but will only use one paddle and no sails or motors.

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.

I don't think that's a virtue, I think it's something that bogs an ideology or a movement down in needless theoretical discussions about how certain groups can get represented. It takes the focus away from what the movement is supposed to be about and results in divisions between people who disagree with the inclusion of others.

We can agree to disagree there.

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.

Because the emancipatory element is already includes in it's colour blind nature. By virtue it recognizes that all men are discriminated against in the West by society and by the legal system and wants to eradicate that discrimination. It doesn't make any racial distinctions because all men of all races in the West suffer from the same sex based discrimination. Men already have specific movements for their rights as part of ethnic groups, like BLM in the United States. That doesn't need MRA support.

So no coalition through affinity. You each seek justice all on your own and hope that all movements coincidentally reach their end goal by themselves.

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

No it isn't. Although this isn't necessarily an MRA argument, it is an MGTOW argument but it applies. Society doesn't view men as inherently valuable, that's why we're forced to go to war, to do dangerous jobs. Our value within society is based on our usefulness to society and what we can provide. A man's value is not in himself or his values but in how much he can provide, that being related to his wealth, is income and his job. Women have inherent value through the virtue of bringing children into this world.

Men are also expected to sacrifice themselves for the greater good too. That's why society entrenches these beliefs in legal discrimination, it allows the state to legally enforce societal beliefs. Gender doesn't come into this because men are held to different standards than women and addressing the legal discrimination would at least be a step in the right direction.

Okay, this is very self-contradicting. You list a number of ways in which men are discriminated, and then you proceed to claim gender doesn't come into it. Disregarding all other claims, which are debatable and read somewhat cherry-picky, this sounds like a very confused ideology.

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.

I'd argue it'd be indispensable for men to have themselves legally recognized as rape victims before we get into any discussions about gender theories.

Why not both? Can the MRA movement not multitask?

[Costa Fierro]

But which posts, specifically? Also, I made no mention of any "lack of sexual exploits".

Your earlier ones in this thread condemning MRA's. And I used sexual exploits in place of "sexual insecurity", because insecurity would inevitably stem from a lack of experience.

You literally argued that the dehumanization of women was a reaction to the alleged dehumanization of men. Not even a perfunctory condemnation, but a direct attempt to shift responsibility.

I made the argument sure, but you said so yourself, that you could not safely argue that it would be the case.

You do realize that you are speaking about millions of women, and you are assuming that they are all in on this hidden agenda and would react the same way... right?

I would say that the majority would be.

Which in practical terms isn't the human rights fight of the century, even if it is arguably necessary.

And therein lies the problem. You've just essentially dismissed or reduced the importance of what the MRA movement is advocating for, presumably because it involves men.

No, but I do appreciate the underlying implication that feminism has "done" something to me. All that's missing is a "wake up, sheeple".

I thought of using the term "woke".

To produce a clear, cohesive critical and emancipatory theory, or set of theories, that you can use as a framework for your advocacy.

MRA's are not interested in wasting time with theories, they want to achieve tangible results.

That sounds rather authoritarian, irresponsible and intellectually dishonest.

It's not irresponsible. It's ensuring that a movement actually remains cohesive and able to achieve something. That's why "radical" feminism is so successful, because it basically sees itself as the only way in which the movement can advance and has no tolerance for dissent.

What you are proposing is like saying you want to sail on a large sailboat, but will only use one paddle and no sails or motors.

No, what I am proposing is that we have a sail boat but not everyone can be captain.

So no coalition through affinity. You each seek justice all on your own and hope that all movements coincidentally reach their end goal by themselves.

No, it advocates for specific interests. The only way to change that would be to make masculism mainstream.

Okay, this is very self-contradicting. You list a number of ways in which men are discriminated, and then you proceed to claim gender doesn't come into it. Disregarding all other claims, which are debatable and read somewhat cherry-picky, this sounds like a very confused ideology.

MGTOW isn't an ideology. It's a life philosophy. MGTOW basically emphasises personal sovereignty and uses that argument as one of the reasons why MGTOW exists.

Why not both? Can the MRA movement not multitask?

No, because it's not a broad intellectual movement like feminism. Masculism would be a better bet for theoretical ideas, but MRA only exists for tangible legal results and some social ones, although arguably that would fall under the realm of masculism.

[Liriena]

But which posts, specifically? Also, I made no mention of any "lack of sexual exploits".

Your earlier ones in this thread condemning MRA's. And I used sexual exploits in place of "sexual insecurity", because insecurity would inevitably stem from a lack of experience.

Not necessarily. I know a lot of men who have plenty of sexual experience and still manage to be very sexually insecure.

Also, specifics would be nice.

You literally argued that the dehumanization of women was a reaction to the alleged dehumanization of men. Not even a perfunctory condemnation, but a direct attempt to shift responsibility.

I made the argument sure, but you said so yourself, that you could not safely argue that it would be the case.

Noooooo... what I said was that I could not safely argue that you were yourself, individually, dehumanizing women.

You do realize that you are speaking about millions of women, and you are assuming that they are all in on this hidden agenda and would react the same way... right?

I would say that the majority would be.

Based on...?

Which in practical terms isn't the human rights fight of the century, even if it is arguably necessary.

And therein lies the problem. You've just essentially dismissed or reduced the importance of what the MRA movement is advocating for, presumably because it involves men.

No.

No, but I do appreciate the underlying implication that feminism has "done" something to me. All that's missing is a "wake up, sheeple".

I thought of using the term "woke".

*snorts*

To produce a clear, cohesive critical and emancipatory theory, or set of theories, that you can use as a framework for your advocacy.

MRA's are not interested in wasting time with theories, they want to achieve tangible results.

Then I'm not particularly interested. I may support your policies, but your title is your own.

That sounds rather authoritarian, irresponsible and intellectually dishonest.

It's not irresponsible. It's ensuring that a movement actually remains cohesive and able to achieve something. That's why "radical" feminism is so successful, because it basically sees itself as the only way in which the movement can advance and has no tolerance for dissent.

You really don't know anything about the inner workings of feminism, do you?

What you are proposing is like saying you want to sail on a large sailboat, but will only use one paddle and no sails or motors.

No, what I am proposing is that we have a sail boat but not everyone can be captain.

So no coalition through affinity. You each seek justice all on your own and hope that all movements coincidentally reach their end goal by themselves.

No, it advocates for specific interests. The only way to change that would be to make masculism mainstream.

Is this the same masculism that thinks gender roles are "natural" or...?

Okay, this is very self-contradicting. You list a number of ways in which men are discriminated, and then you proceed to claim gender doesn't come into it. Disregarding all other claims, which are debatable and read somewhat cherry-picky, this sounds like a very confused ideology.

MGTOW isn't an ideology. It's a life philosophy.

Okay, let's call it a "life philosophy".

MGTOW basically emphasises personal sovereignty and uses that argument as one of the reasons why MGTOW exists.

Personal sovereignity... while overgeneralizing others and building a whole vocabulary for the purposes of sustaining that overgeneralization, often to the point of dehumanization.

Cool.

Why not both? Can the MRA movement not multitask?

No, because it's not a broad intellectual movement like feminism. Masculism would be a better bet for theoretical ideas, but MRA only exists for tangible legal results and some social ones, although arguably that would fall under the realm of masculism.

Alright. So it's a "practical" movement that aims for tangible legal results without actually having any intellectual backing.

[Bakery Hill]

Hey MRAs can you help me out? Can't figure out whether I am a Chad or a Beta.

[Costa Fierro]

Also, specifics would be nice.

That earlier post that accused them of sexual insecurity.

Based on...?

The sheer amount of hate that MRA's get and the amount of women and feminist media outlets critisising the move in the United States to get women to sign up for Selective Service.

No.

You going to actually engage rather than dismiss?

You really don't know anything about the inner workings of feminism, do you?

Do you?

Is this the same masculism that thinks gender roles are "natural" or...?

I wouldn't know. I only found out about it a couple of months ago. I'd say "perhaps", but I don't know enough about it to comment fully.

Okay, let's call it a "life philosophy".

Then what would you call it?

Personal sovereignity... while overgeneralizing others and building a whole vocabulary for the purposes of sustaining that overgeneralization, often to the point of dehumanization.

You seem to take issue with it. MGTOW's have to reaffirm the reasons why we have gone MGTOW in the first place.

Alright. So it's a "practical" movement that aims for tangible legal results without actually having any intellectual backing.

It gets intellectual backing from masculinists.

[Imperializt Russia]

This is what my problem with "Men's Rights Activists" is - the NAME of the group.

I entirely get that there are male issues that have to be dealt with. The suicide rate for males under 40s is far too high. The fact that women under 40 are more likely to try to kill themselves, but men under 40 are more likely to succeed is truly depressing. The fact that men feel pressured to provide, to be "the man" (which is a bullshit term to start with) and all that crap.

But I don't see that as an issue of men's rights. Men's issues, men's problems - sure. But men's rights? Seriously?

Go back 100, 200 years. Women were not allowed to vote. Not allowed to own property. Some were not allowed to work. Some were not allowed to get an education, instead they were expected, sometimes forced, to stay home and raise kids.

These are why we have Women's Rights organisations and Women's RIghts Activists. Because the things that men took for granted - that they were given by the government simply because they were men - were not given to women simply because they were women.

So while agree there are issues for men that need dealing with, they are not RIGHTS that need fighting for. So calling a group "Men's Rights Activists" is bullshit, and patronising and frankly insulting.

I would argue that the right to terminate parental responsibilities up to a point is a right that men are frequently denied but whatever. I suppose American feminists should cease claiming to be for equal rights considering that women already have de jure equality, at the very least. They are considered legal equals to men, with all the rights associated with that. So surely it's bullshit, and patronizing and insulting for "women's rights activists" to claim that title if they only operate in countries like the US, yes?

The existence of third wave feminism is due to two things.
While the 2nd wave achieved, ostensibly, legal parity to men, the belief that it was not properly enforced. Employers were obligated to pay the same wages to women as to men, but there is a perceived wage gap. Society was still extremely sexist beyond the remit of "legal equality", much like how racism and white supremacy didn't go away when the Civil Rights Act was enacted.

"Women's rights activists" absolutely do not "only operate in countries like the US", they exist all over the world, including the middle east, far east, Africa and Europe.

[Imperializt Russia]

Based on...?

The sheer amount of hate that MRA's get and the amount of women and feminist media outlets critisising the move in the United States to get women to sign up for Selective Service.

Which is not on the basis that only men should die in Selective Service (which you would do well to note has been technically inactive for over forty years), but that no-one should have to sign up to it.

You seem to take issue with it. MGTOW's have to reaffirm the reasons why we have gone MGTOW in the first place.

Because they're seemingly universally bad reasons.
You could just be single and own that, rather than adopting a mantra which is literally "fuck women for being awful people to me".

Works for me, and I'm not beset with rage at women making their own personal choices

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

You could just be single and own that

Define "own that," and tell us precisely how that differs from MGTOW.

[Imperializt Russia]

You could just be single and own that

Define "own that," and tell us precisely how that differs from MGTOW.

MGTOW is a rejection of women. "Being single" is just not being in a relationship.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Define "own that," and tell us precisely how that differs from MGTOW.

MGTOW is a rejection of women. "Being single" is just not being in a relationship.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Try again.

[Galloism]

MGTOW is a rejection of women. "Being single" is just not being in a relationship.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Try again.

You've got to understand there's an ingrained cultural bias against men who reject women or marriage. Society sees that as "rejecting" your responsibility.

It's why, if you go back to England, male homosexuality was illegal starting in about AD 43 with the Roman conquest, and was mostly illegal from then until the 20th century. Female homosexuality was never illegal in England, at least as far as we can tell. Gay men were viewed as "rejecting" women, and that was horrible. It undermined the state and the order of things (it doesn't, but it was thought of that way). Now, women who failed to get married were viewed as "old maids" or "failures", which is itself a form of cultural oppression, but being a man who rejected women was illegal.

MGTOW is just getting that old cultural bias working against them.

You can see this effect another way:

MGTOW gets a lot of shit for rejecting women. Political lesbianism gets very little shit for rejecting men (I won't say none - just less).

[Imperializt Russia]

"Rejecting women" (in this context, celibacy) and "being a homosexual male" are not the same thing. And indeed, many high society types who have retained a modicum of fame either were gay or rumoured to be such. The enforcement of anti-homosexuality in the UK has been extremely classist, right up to and indeed beyond its partial and eventual total decriminalisation.

You've got to understand there's an ingrained cultural bias against men who reject women or marriage.

If you reject women because of your perceived treatment by women, and/or how you worry women might "treat" you in future, you are a bad person with irrational concerns.

[Galloism]

"Rejecting women" (in this context, celibacy) and "being a homosexual male" are not the same thing. And indeed, many high society types who have retained a modicum of fame either were gay or rumoured to be such. The enforcement of anti-homosexuality in the UK has been extremely classist, right up to and indeed beyond its partial and eventual total decriminalisation.

You've got to understand there's an ingrained cultural bias against men who reject women or marriage.

If you reject women because of your perceived treatment by women, and/or how you worry women might "treat" you in future, you are a bad person with irrational concerns.

Eh, I'm not sure it's an irrational concern. Overblown perhaps, but not per se irrational.

Keep in mind - women abuse their partners at roughly equal rates to men, but men are arrested for being abused, and no one will believe them. Almost a million men are raped by their partners each year, but people by and large side with their rapists. Women, like men, also sabotage birth control to "trap" their partners into this abusive relationship - except women have the social freedom to leave, while men are socially shamed and told to "man up".

And if any of this abuse or rape results in a child, holy shit are you fucked. The state will require you to support your abusive rapist partner for 18 years. If you don't stay and endure the beatings, you're alternatively awful for leaving your abuser or leaving your child in the hands of your abuser. Oh, and if you try to get your child away from your abuser, you probably are viewed as being the abuser. Therefore, your chances of success are slim and you'll be vilified in any case.

Overblown? Perhaps. Irrational? Not a chance. They decided it wasn't worth the risk. I disagree, but that's their choice.

Much like political lesbianism, which has similar motivations (except without the state sponsored reinforcement of abuse).

In case you're not familiar with political lesbians, they are straight women who "become gay" because they want to reject men.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

"Rejecting women" (in this context, celibacy) and "being a homosexual male" are not the same thing. And indeed, many high society types who have retained a modicum of fame either were gay or rumoured to be such. The enforcement of anti-homosexuality in the UK has been extremely classist, right up to and indeed beyond its partial and eventual total decriminalisation.

You've got to understand there's an ingrained cultural bias against men who reject women or marriage.

If you reject women because of your perceived treatment by women, and/or how you worry women might "treat" you in future, you are a bad person with irrational concerns.

That's not what you said. You contrasted it with "owning" being single, while still remaining vague about exactly how that contrasts with MGTOW.

No more backpedalling. Answer the question.

[Ors Might]

I would argue that the right to terminate parental responsibilities up to a point is a right that men are frequently denied but whatever. I suppose American feminists should cease claiming to be for equal rights considering that women already have de jure equality, at the very least. They are considered legal equals to men, with all the rights associated with that. So surely it's bullshit, and patronizing and insulting for "women's rights activists" to claim that title if they only operate in countries like the US, yes?

The existence of third wave feminism is due to two things.
While the 2nd wave achieved, ostensibly, legal parity to men, the belief that it was not properly enforced. Employers were obligated to pay the same wages to women as to men, but there is a perceived wage gap. Society was still extremely sexist beyond the remit of "legal equality", much like how racism and white supremacy didn't go away when the Civil Rights Act was enacted.

"Women's rights activists" absolutely do not "only operate in countries like the US", they exist all over the world, including the middle east, far east, Africa and Europe.

I never meant to imply that there still aren't issues in the US that need to be solved. There are. By god is there. My post was only stating that women have de jure equality and thus, when it comes to the law, have every right that men do. I can completely accept that de facto equality hasn't quite been achieved. Not for women or men.

[Chestaan]

Actually, they point out toxic masculinity, as a concept, is just another way to victim blame men for their problems, as society almost always does.

After all, you never hear about the wage gap being caused by "toxic femininity", other than MRAs who throw that out to be ironic.

The whole point of toxic masculinity is that it is men policing the actions of other men for being insufficiently manly. Anyone who uses the terms beta, alpha, cuck, fag (or any other homophobic slur), questioning manliness (pacifism, career choice, assertiveness) or the perceived "no friendship possible" male-female dynamic are engaging in activities that we call "toxic masculinity". And fragile masculinity as a part of that - their masculinity is so facile and fragile that they perceive the need to lash out "toxically" to enforce it.

Toxic masculinity is about enforcing "manliness" because, through a feminist perspective, men are obviously privileged over women in most aspects of society, and this is an effort to batter men into line with the social script placing men at the top in positions of power.

That's all it is.

So, in other words, toxic masculinity is a way of blaming the problems faced by men on other men? Would you call the slut shaming of women by other women toxic femininity?

Also you do realise that by claiming that those who engage in toxic masculinity do so because their own masculinity is fragile you are doing the exact same thing that those who engage in toxic masculinity do? Specifically you are calling those who don't conform to your views less manly than those who do.

[Tahar Joblis]

If you reject women because of your perceived treatment by women, and/or how you worry women might "treat" you in future, you are a bad person with irrational concerns.

Absolutely not.

First, some men have been, are being, and will be treated like shit by women in their lives. That doesn't mean they're bad people, and claiming that those men are bad people is nothing more and nothing less than victim-blaming.

Second, some men will anticipate, based on either their personal experience or the experience of other men they know, that women will treat them like shit. In some cases, this expectation is pretty reasonable, especially for men who have traits that are likely to lead to being victimized by women in one or another way or live in communities where one or another form of treating men like shit is particularly common. So this isn't unfounded. It's a perfectly reasonable worry to have, and many women also worry about being treated like shit by men.

Third, some men, especially men with a low sex drive, see relatively little benefit from having a close relationship with even a woman who doesn't treat them like shit, being perfectly content to pursue hobbies, career, etc, which means that the risk-reward equation (some chance of a woman who turns out to be okay, some chance of a woman who treats you like shit and actively tries to ruin your life) shifts pretty dramatically. Especially when you consider how much work the typical man has to do to start a relationship. For a typical single adult man who isn't in school and has hobbies, friends, a career to try to advance, etc, just trying to get into a relationship in the first place carries a significant opportunity cost with no guarantee of success.

The only difference between women not choosing to pursue men and men not choosing to pursue women is that women who don't choose to pursue men still have opportunities, thanks to a social norm putting the onus on men to do the work of initiating and maintaining romantic relationships.

Very bluntly, feminists have done a lot to help the acceptance of women going their own way and prioritizing their career, friends, hobbies, etc. It's high time we de-stigmatized men who don't pursue relationships with women.

[Greed and Death]

All this because maybe we should have due process before we expel a person and give them a black mark that will prevent them from going to a ranked college ever again ?

I am sorry but due process is needed on campus.

[Costa Fierro]

Because they're seemingly universally bad reasons.

According to you.

You could just be single and own that

That's literally what it is.

[Kvatchdom]

Toxic masculinity is not masculinity, and is not caused by people, but culture, and it harms both sexes. Men are blamed for violent crimes more often due to either being more violent than women generally

There we go blaming men again.

or the society seeing men as stronger thus more capable. I feel like it's both, and both are caused by cultural toxic masculinity, the idea that men are emotionless, strong and violent. In comparison, toxic femininity causes women to become more prone to cause strife, to be submissive, etc.
Masculinity and femininity are natural things, the toxic either are simply cultural phenomena that lead to higher male suicide rates

By blaming the victims who already blame themselves enough they want to die.

It's also worth noting, and this has been cited repeatedly, women are the primary enforcers of the male gender role. Women are also the primary enforcers of the female gender role.

But, you know, it's masculinity that's toxic.

This and higher female domestic violence victims and the such.

I'll tell you, blatant counterfactual sexism continually appearing when people are attempting to defend feminism, as a movement, never gets old.

Blaming the culture that enforces this stuff on men*
You seem to completely, either by choice or by just not reading properly, misunderstood my comment entirely. Society enforces these roles, not individual people.
Toxic masculinity is not masculinity, just as toxic femininity is not femininity. Come on, it's not hard to see what this comment means.

Atleast in Finland, about half of emergency calls to homes are domestic violence issues, and a large portion of murder is husbands stabbing their wife while both were drunk and arguing. I blame our alcohol and family culture for this, not men, or women.

Ignoring whole sections of arguments never gets old either.

[Kvatchdom]

The whole point of toxic masculinity is that it is men policing the actions of other men for being insufficiently manly. Anyone who uses the terms beta, alpha, cuck, fag (or any other homophobic slur), questioning manliness (pacifism, career choice, assertiveness) or the perceived "no friendship possible" male-female dynamic are engaging in activities that we call "toxic masculinity". And fragile masculinity as a part of that - their masculinity is so facile and fragile that they perceive the need to lash out "toxically" to enforce it.

Toxic masculinity is about enforcing "manliness" because, through a feminist perspective, men are obviously privileged over women in most aspects of society, and this is an effort to batter men into line with the social script placing men at the top in positions of power.

That's all it is.

So, in other words, toxic masculinity is a way of blaming the problems faced by men on other men? Would you call the slut shaming of women by other women toxic femininity?

Also you do realise that by claiming that those who engage in toxic masculinity do so because their own masculinity is fragile you are doing the exact same thing that those who engage in toxic masculinity do? Specifically you are calling those who don't conform to your views less manly than those who do.

Not other men, other people and the society in which the issues arise.

Toxic masculinity is not just something people do. Rape is not toxic masculinity, but the prevalence of it is. The fragility of masculinity however is just an irritating way to ignore the issues men face. People killing themselves or killing others is not fragility, it's a problem.