In Defence of All Lives Matter

[Ostroeuropa]

About half of MRAs are left wing, myself included. I'd suggest you examine whether this is a paranoid understanding of what the MRM stands for. I'd suggest you examine whether this is a paranoid understanding of what the MRM stands for.

By your own logic focusing on men is some kind of reactionary exclusion; if you replaced those MRs with BLs, you would draw the opposite conclusion because you also have a "paranoid understanding" of what BLM stands for.

That isn't the case. I'm not arguing for a need to talk about how whiteness is under assault by the police.

The MRM is also intersectional in its approach to issues. At least, the organizations and parts I support are. It's routine for MRAs to note black men or gay men specifically face a certain issue in a different way. But, nonetheless, if the MRM's approach to an issue can be shown to be exclusionary, then i'd be happy to concede that's a limitation of how it frames the issue and the need for coalition with other groups.

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

That isn't the case. I'm not arguing for a need to talk about how whiteness is under assault by the police.

The MRM is also intersectional in its approach to issues. At least, the organizations and parts I support are. It's routine for MRAs to note black men or gay men specifically face a certain issue in a different way. But, nonetheless, if the MRM's approach to an issue can be shown to be exclusionary, then i'd be happy to concede that's a limitation of how it frames the issue and the need for coalition with other groups.

It's amazing you can have such a nuanced view of a movement that actively includes fascists, but think BLM is problematic because they focus on black people "to the exclusion of everyone else". (Again, false.)

[Ostroeuropa]

That isn't the case. I'm not arguing for a need to talk about how whiteness is under assault by the police.

The MRM is also intersectional in its approach to issues. At least, the organizations and parts I support are. It's routine for MRAs to note black men or gay men specifically face a certain issue in a different way. But, nonetheless, if the MRM's approach to an issue can be shown to be exclusionary, then i'd be happy to concede that's a limitation of how it frames the issue and the need for coalition with other groups.

It's amazing you can have such a nuanced view of a movement that actively includes fascists, but think BLM is problematic because they focus on black people "to the exclusion of everyone else".

The MRM doesn't actively include fascists. That's a ridiculous understanding of the MRM, probably borne of conflating all anti-feminist movements as being the same.

If you paid attention you'd note that I'm happy to concede that my criticism of the flaws of BLM could apply to the MRM if you can demonstrate an example on an issue. The same nuance is being provided in both examples.

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

The MRM doesn't actively include fascists. That's a ridiculous understanding of the MRM, probably borne of conflating all anti-feminist movements as being the same.

If you paid attention you'd note that I'm happy to concede that my criticism of the flaws of BLM could apply to the MRM if you can demonstrate an example on an issue. The same nuance is being provided in both examples.

I think we all know there are a lot of fascist MRAs, and saying that is less ridiculous than saying BLM and organizations that organize along race are exclusionary of white people, the disabled, etc.

[Ostroeuropa]

The MRM doesn't actively include fascists. That's a ridiculous understanding of the MRM, probably borne of conflating all anti-feminist movements as being the same.

If you paid attention you'd note that I'm happy to concede that my criticism of the flaws of BLM could apply to the MRM if you can demonstrate an example on an issue. The same nuance is being provided in both examples.

I think we all know there are a lot of fascist MRAs, and saying that is less ridiculous than saying BLM and organizations that organize along race are exclusionary of white people, the disabled, etc.

You might think you know that, but you're very much mistaken. The ideologies of mens rights and fascism are fundamentally at odds. Why don't you argue this in the feminism thread if you want.

BLM's framing of the issue of police violence is race reductionist and exclusionary. That is different from saying they exclude white or disabled people. It's also different from saying that they can't cooperate with groups without those flaws in their framing in order to shore up the weaknesses of their framework.

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

You might think you know that, but you're very much mistaken. The ideologies of mens rights and fascism are fundamentally at odds. Why don't you argue this in the feminism thread if you want.

Lol because your analysis of BLM and MRM is a contradiction and hypocritical.

BLM's framing of the issue of police violence is race reductionist and exclusionary. That is different from saying they exclude white or disabled people.

That is what you said, though, and won't concede.

[Ostroeuropa]

You might think you know that, but you're very much mistaken. The ideologies of mens rights and fascism are fundamentally at odds. Why don't you argue this in the feminism thread if you want.

Lol because your analysis of BLM and MRM is a contradiction and hypocritical.

BLM's framing of the issue of police violence is race reductionist and exclusionary. That is different from saying they exclude white or disabled people.

That is what you said, though, and won't concede.

There is no contradiction or hypocrisy. You've not noted a way in which the MRM is exclusionary, and I've already noted that if you could, i'm happy to say the MRM should tackle that issue with groups that lack that exclusionary aspect when dealing with that issue. Precisely the same standards I hold for BLM.

That isn't what I said. I think you just don't understand the difference. Do you think the republican party is racist and their framework is exclusionary to black peoples issues? Do you nonetheless acknowledge that black people can join the republican party?

That the framework of BLM is race reductionist and exclusionary of other forms of police violence, doesn't mean they exclude *people* from joining or something. It also doesn't mean that BLM can't enter coalition with other groups to shore up those weaknesses. It is, in fact, the reason they should.

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

You've not noted a way in which the MRM is exclusionary, and I've already noted that if you could, i'm happy to say the MRM should tackle that issue with groups that lack that exclusionary aspect when dealing with that issue. Precisely the same standards I hold for BLM.

I only haven't noted it if you don't think there are reactionary "MGTOW"-type MRAs that have a substantial sway over that movement and affinity groups.

That isn't what I said. I think you just don't understand the difference. Do you think the republican party is racist and their framework is exclusionary to black people? Do you nonetheless acknowledge that black people can join the republican party?

I mean you told me BLM is exclusionary because of some snippet you found on a BLM website, I certainly don't analyze the Republican Party or its supporters that way.

[Ostroeuropa]

You've not noted a way in which the MRM is exclusionary, and I've already noted that if you could, i'm happy to say the MRM should tackle that issue with groups that lack that exclusionary aspect when dealing with that issue. Precisely the same standards I hold for BLM.

I only haven't noted it if you don't think there are reactionary "MGTOW"-type MRAs that have a substantial sway over that movement and affinity groups.

That isn't what I said. I think you just don't understand the difference. Do you think the republican party is racist and their framework is exclusionary to black people? Do you nonetheless acknowledge that black people can join the republican party?

I mean you told me BLM is exclusionary because of some snippet you found on a BLM website, I certainly don't analyze the Republican Party or its supporters that way.

MGTOW and the MRM are separate movements. That's why they're called different things. Which groups? Let's take this to the feminism thread.

I've explained to you at length how it's exclusionary and sourced those claims with a BLM website. If those claims aren't accurate, then I'd suggest you take it up with them.

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

I've explained to you at length how it's exclusionary and sourced those claims with a BLM website. If those claims aren't accurate, then I'd suggest you take it up with them.

Holding that BLM is exclusionary while also praising its coalition building is a paradox, you can't hold onto the idea that BLM has an exclusionary analysis as you claim while they prove through action that's not the case. Just like you would draw your conclusions of the Republican Party not by their website but their actions.

[Ostroeuropa]

I've explained to you at length how it's exclusionary and sourced those claims with a BLM website. If those claims aren't accurate, then I'd suggest you take it up with them.

Holding that BLM is exclusionary while also praising its coalition building is a paradox, you can't hold onto the idea that BLM has an exclusionary analysis as you claim while they prove through action that's not the case. Just like you would draw your conclusions of the Republican Party not by their website but their actions.

If your point is that they have unstated principles that are revealed by their praxis, then that may well be true, but that merely shifts the problem from flaws in their theoretical framework into flaws with their awareness and articulation of their own framework, and i'm not particularly keen on that being much of a distinction for a whole host of reasons on other issues.

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

Holding that BLM is exclusionary while also praising its coalition building is a paradox, you can't hold onto the idea that BLM has an exclusionary analysis as you claim while they prove through action that's not the case. Just like you would draw your conclusions of the Republican Party not by their website but their actions.

If your point is that they have unstated principles that are revealed by their praxis, then that may well be true, but that merely shifts the problem from flaws in their theoretical framework into flaws with their awareness and articulation of their own framework, and i'm not particularly keen on that being much of a distinction for a whole host of reasons on other issues.

Except there are material communications, organizing efforts, collaborative events, collaborative campaigns, all of which are publicized in the public media, that disprove your claim that their principles are "unstated", maybe you have a critique of one group's website but that's about it.

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

It is the mission of A Voice for Men to provide education and encouragement to men and boys; to lift them above the din of misandry, to reject the unhealthy demands of gynocentrism in all its forms, and to promote their mental, physical and financial well-being without compromise or apology.

Here's another website snippet from the "MRM" lifted in the same way you analyzed "BLM". I don't see any intersectionality with feminists, anti-racists, etc. here. Is this defensive and narrow mission statement how I am to judge the MRM?

Presumably there are other groups within the MRM that articulate themselves differently, perhaps you could say some ideological frameworks precludes some groups from being a self-identified element of the MRM, but I think it would be unfair to give the MRM the same analysis, based on anecdotal evidence, that is actually exclusionary of your own experience for instance, as has been done in your analysis and often unvarnished accusations of BLM, no different from me saying that MRM is an exclusionary movement until they "articulate themselves better", however that would even be done across such a horizontal and fragmented social movement.

[Ostroeuropa]

It is the mission of A Voice for Men to provide education and encouragement to men and boys; to lift them above the din of misandry, to reject the unhealthy demands of gynocentrism in all its forms, and to promote their mental, physical and financial well-being without compromise or apology.

Here's another website snippet from the "MRM" lifted in the same way you analyzed "BLM". I don't see any intersectionality with feminists, anti-racists, etc. here. Is this defensive and narrow mission statement how I am to judge the MRM?

Presumably there are other groups within the MRM that articulate themselves differently, perhaps you could say some ideological frameworks precludes some groups from being a self-identified element of the MRM, but I think it would be unfair to give the MRM the same analysis, based on anecdotal evidence, that is actually exclusionary of your own experience for instance, as has been done in your analysis and often unvarnished accusations of BLM, no different from me saying that MRM is an exclusionary movement until they "articulate themselves better", however that would even be done across such a horizontal and fragmented social movement.

I'm not arguing BLM needs to have sections on how police violence against whiteness, because that would be presenting a privileged group as oppressed.
That is different from presenting an issue that impacts *many oppressed groups* as an issue unique to one of them by poorly framing the issue while campaigning. There is also a distinction between an *issues campaigning group* and a broad theoretical framework for articulating particular perspectives. It would be different if, say, AVFM said "It is our mission to end the practice of not paying males overtime pay".

A better example would be CAFE, an *issues campaigning group* that is in the MRM, participates in pride marches, called for an expansion of the inquiry into murder of indigenous people, and so on and so on.

It's also notable that the issue of sex is far more inclusive than the issue of race to the point it's difficult to find an example where it would amount to what you're arguing even in theory.

While police violence effects black people, it also effects mentally unwell people and so on and so on.

But if you're arguing for *male equality with women*, then most of those are already under that umbrella.

And once more, since you're still struggling to get it:

I have already told you I am happy to concede the MRM should enter coalition with other groups where their approach on an issue can be shown to be exclusionary and insufficient. I think the problem is that you're hostile to criticism and acknowledgement of limitations of a group and the need for cooperation with others.

Is it your position that BLM would be fine if it didn't cooperate with others?

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

It's also notable that the issue of sex is far more inclusive than the issue of race to the point it's difficult to find an example where it would amount to what you're arguing even in theory.

While police violence effects black people, it also effects mentally unwell people and so on and so on.

I literally cited a men's rights website that excludes all mention of sexism from the perspective of women, if that anecdotal evidence doesn't make MRM exclusionary but the same about BLM does, that's a paradox.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's also notable that the issue of sex is far more inclusive than the issue of race to the point it's difficult to find an example where it would amount to what you're arguing even in theory.

While police violence effects black people, it also effects mentally unwell people and so on and so on.

I literally cited a men's rights website that excludes all mention of sexism from the perspective of women, if that anecdotal evidence doesn't make MRM exclusionary but the same about BLM does, that's a paradox.

And this is the point; I'm not claiming BLM needs a section on how police violence against white people is a problem too. I don't consider them exclusionary for failing to do that. That would be presenting a privileged group as oppressed.

Excluding the perspective of "Police violence against whiteness" is fine. So is excluding mention of sexism from the perspective of women in the context of a mens rights organization. There is no paradox there.

There's a difference between acknowledging the limitations of a groups framework in recognizing other oppressed perspectives, and expecting it to recognize an oppressors perspective.

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

Excluding the perspective of "Police violence against whiteness" is fine. So is excluding mention of sexism from the perspective of women in the context of a mens rights organization. There is no paradox there.

I mean sure but you said BLM is exclusionary for excluding police violence against whites, the disabled, etc.

They stand with black people, all black people, against police violence. They don't have an approach that includes other demographics subjected to police violence. That's race reductionism.

MRM is "reductionist" too, then, for excluding the perspectives of women, gays, the disabled, POC, trans men, etc. who are also subjected to sexism, gender norms, masculinism, etc.

[Ostroeuropa]

Excluding the perspective of "Police violence against whiteness" is fine. So is excluding mention of sexism from the perspective of women in the context of a mens rights organization. There is no paradox there.

I mean sure but you said BLM is exclusionary for excluding police violence against whites, the disabled, etc.

They stand with black people, all black people, against police violence. They don't have an approach that includes other demographics subjected to police violence. That's race reductionism.

MRM is "reductionist" too, then, for excluding the perspectives of women, gays, POC, trans men, etc. who are also subjected to sexism, gender norms, masculinism, etc.

I never said they were exclusionary for not mentioning whites. Merely for talking about the issue of police brutality without reference to how this is an issue shared by other groups and how it is not a "Blackness" thing, but an "Otherness" thing, of which being Black is only one form.

The MRM doesn't exclude the perspectives of POC, gays, trans men, and so on. Those are a key component of the movement and its ideology. When discussing issues, care is taken to mention how it impacts those communities. 20% of the MRM is LGBT, above population norms, for example, and it's routine for criticism of the campus kangaroo courts and disproportionate police treatment to include reference to how these issues impact black men most of all. And where that isn't done, that is absolutely a failure of the speaker, reductionist, and exclusionary.

For example, the MRM discussing police violence tends to bring up the racial element in conjunction with the sex element. I don't see BLM doing that as much, or at least, not examining why males in particular are treated the same as other "Disposable" groups. (As someone else noted, the police focus their violence on people who they can *get away with being violent to*).

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

I never said they were exclusionary for not mentioning whites. Merely for talking about the issue of police brutality without reference to how this is an issue shared by other groups and how it is not a "Blackness" thing, but an "Otherness" thing, of which being Black is only one form.

Okay but you did say they were exclusionary, for what? Ignoring people, the disabled, the poor, etc., - that's exclusionary, except when done by MRM. You're just going to glance over that?

The MRM doesn't exclude the perspectives of POC, gays, trans men, and so on. Those are a key component of the movement and its ideology. When discussing issues, care is taken to mention how it impacts those communities.

Not in the website snippet I found, the number one Google result. I don't see what your point is in giving context to a movement that you've conversely ignored about BLM.

[Ostroeuropa]

I never said they were exclusionary for not mentioning whites. Merely for talking about the issue of police brutality without reference to how this is an issue shared by other groups and how it is not a "Blackness" thing, but an "Otherness" thing, of which being Black is only one form.

Okay but you did say they were exclusionary, for what? Ignoring people, the disabled, the poor, etc., - that's exclusionary, except when done by MRM. You're just going to glance over that?

The MRM doesn't exclude the perspectives of POC, gays, trans men, and so on. Those are a key component of the movement and its ideology. When discussing issues, care is taken to mention how it impacts those communities.

Not in the website snippet I found, the number one Google result. I don't see what your point is in giving context to a movement that you've conversely ignored about BLM.

As I've said, I have no objection to MRM groups entering coalition with others based on their view being limited.

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

Okay but you did say they were exclusionary, for what? Ignoring people, the disabled, the poor, etc., - that's exclusionary, except when done by MRM. You're just going to glance over that?




Not in the website snippet I found, the number one Google result. I don't see what your point is in giving context to a movement that you've conversely ignored about BLM.

As I've said, I have no objection to MRM groups entering coalition with others based on their view being limited.

But you won't say the MRM has an exclusionary analysis based on circumstantial evidence, as you do about BLM. That's a paradox.

[German Proletarians]

Segregation is a bad thing. I'd rather we didn't go back to it.

"No Whites" areas sounds disturbingly similar to things labelled "Coloureds Only" in the past. It baffles me that some minorities would want to open that particular door which took so much pain and work for them to close.

The funny thing is one day when some asshole from 4chan puts up a sign on a wall saying "whites only," they'll screaming "NO NO NO NO."

What's the matter? You want your safe space but the whites shouldn't have one? I thought you would like this? Now that we've divided society into official spaces for blacks and whites, you will never have to deal with a white person ever again. District 14 is the black area of town and district 10 is the white area. If what you are reading makes you uncomfortable as hell, it's because racial safe spaces are for bigots. No one who has zero prejudice says "I want a place where I can go where everyone is my race." Only a hateful xenophobe feels that way.

thats not the point. black-only meetings are ok. they never mentionned urban planning or public transportation. having bipoc-only meetings or white-only meetings is perfectly okay, as long as youre not plotting something terrible. its not hurting anyone. they just wanna feel safe with people of their community. im half syrian and the church that i am relentlessly dragged to on special events by my super religious dad hosts syrian-only meetings. its not segregation, theyre just talking abt their struggles, life, religion, etc. stuff that non-syrians (or non christian syrians) dont understand its like if a bunch of girls rallied up to talk about their periods, youd obviously do not want any guys because they wouldnt understand.

[Ostroeuropa]

As I've said, I have no objection to MRM groups entering coalition with others based on their view being limited.

But you won't say the MRM has an exclusionary analysis based on circumstantial evidence, as you do about BLM. That's a paradox.

Firstly the evidence isn't circumstantial, that's not what that word means.

Secondly, that's not what paradox means either.

Thirdly, the MRM isn't exclusionary because as I've pointed out to you, I'm not calling BLM exclusionary for not discussing whiteness and how it is targeted by police violence, because that would be nonsense. Similarly, I don't consider the MRM exclusionary for not discussing sexism against women.

Fourth, you have failed to understand the difference between the two quotes in that one (BLM) Explicitly divides groups experiencing a similar issue along racial lines, whereas the MRM quote you provided simply did not mention them for a broad mission statement. (If you don't understand the relevance here, I suggest you look at CAFE again. There is a difference between "We're a group about mens issues" and "We're a group about police violence against black people". When the issue of say, kidnappings of indigenous people turns up, CAFE acts on it *as it is a mens issue*, but when it does so, it does so intersectionally. It's a categorization thing. If something Is a mens issue, it will be tackled. Not, We Will Tackle This Issue For Men And Only Men. Example; CAFE Marched in the Pride Parade because men experience homophobia. But they didn't march in the pride parade to attack homophobia *against men*, but homophobia in general. This is also how the MRM approaches issues like domestic violence and rape. (For example, noting that woman-on-woman rape and domestic violence is not adequately served by the feminist status quo either, and that our proposals must ensure this ends too. The reason we talk about DV and Rape is they are mens issues, but the *proposals and action* are inclusive.)

Fifth, your floundering about trying to get me to say the MRM is exclusionary as some sort of gotcha is pointless, as I've already told you that even if you accomplished that, it would not change my opinion of the movement. It would merely shift the need to enter coalition with others from a practical consideration into an ethical and practical one, and highlight the flaws of its framework for analyzing issues. Flaws which i'll gladly concede in terms of the ideology since all ideology is limited and contains within it the roots of its own destruction unless those flaws are acknowledged and counteracted with other ideologies better prepared to handle those flaws. (Like balancing the state and the market).

Sixth, it seems to me you put an unhealthy amount of stock in feeling morally superior to others and that's why you're engaged in this. You've shifted from arguing BLM doesn't have the flaws I noted into arguing "You too" as though it would change the ways BLM is flawed, or as though it would grant you some kind of victory in this discussion when as I've said, nothing about my opinion would change beyond now knowing the limitations of a particular framework for understanding issues. I would suggest you simply accept BLM is flawed and that this is fine, and all it means is that there is a need to counteract it with other perspectives on the issue to prevent those flaws manifesting.

[Auristania]

Black lives Matter versus All lives Matter.

Both slogans are excellent moral statements. BUT, the Organizations around those slogans???

My opinion about these two Organizations is based upon the Internet. If the Internet is wrong, then my opinion is wrong.

Every single member of BLM actually believes that ONLY Black lives matter: there ain't no such thing as racism versus WHites. Likewise, every single member of ALM is a troll whingeing that BLM are all SJW.

[Rusozak]

My opinion about these two Organizations is based upon the Internet. If the Internet is wrong, then my opinion is wrong.

So you're wrong.