For my fellow "marriage shy" men.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

San Martin:
I don't know what to think about the OP. On the one hand his writing is coherent and fluent, suggesting him to be intelligent, but on the other his arguments indicate that he is at best a Men's Rights Activist, and at worst a MGTOW, also known as the spewers of some of the most idiotic garbage on the internet. I don't know what kind of mental gymnastics you'd have to perform to come to the ridiculous conclusion that men have it worse than women, but my God these people seem to be capable of them.

If I don't get married it'll be because I see it as an outdated and unnecessary institution, not because I'm misguided enough to think women are horrible bloodsuckers who want to divorce me, take my house and children away and then force me to pay them every last penny I have.

Oh, but of course, who cares what I have to say? I treat women as equals and with the same respect I treat men, which makes me a "beta-male", a worthless piece of garbage who's holding humanity back. Jesus fucking Christ.

Speaking of mental gymnastics...

Firstly, you don't know what to think of me. Good. Quite frankly I like to think that over the span of my far-too-many-years-to-be-doing-this-gaming-lark lifespan, I've earned the right to not be laid out like a Parisian courtesan a handful of posts into my recent foray into fora.

Secondly, I don't think it's arrogant to recognise a compliment, so thank you, I like to think I am smarter than your average bear and I genuinely appreciate any compliments directed toward my writing. In an age of text speak I quite like putting the effort into the Good Stuff.

Pleasantries complete, you seem to be misinformed, and you're putting quite a lot of words in my mouth and I have little appreciation for either of these things.

I would say if anything I support 'men'. I don't associate particularly within either MGTOW or MRA circles, despite knowing of and watching both from afar. I don't really go in for labels because then it's little more than a tribe. Your opinion about people that care about male issues seems quite informed by 'Tumblr Feminists'(and their kin), and I don't really want to go down that rabbit hole, but the bottom line is nobody is saying 'man have it worse than women' and dropping the mic.

There are real and very serious legal benefits to being a woman and some of these are financed by resources gouged directly from former men in her life. These were once relevant, good even, since when these laws were created if a woman didn't have some kind of lifeline gifted to her then she might find herself going from an upper class lifestyle to effectively living on the streets. While that is no longer a reality for women, the archaic legal system is still transferring wealth from men, to women, at an incredible amount. Never even mind, as some have said, various battles about custody, how easy it is for a woman to just say 'abuse' and *instantly* completely deny the father all access to his children for sometimes years at a go, with no penalty for abusing that system and outright lying.

And let this thread be proof that if a man is going to speak up for his fellow men and let them know that conversations are finally starting to be had, *without saying anything negative about women*, he better be swiftly prepared to defend himself from attacks of his character, attacks on other mens character, "stereotyping", "Not All Women Are Like That", "Misogynist", "men abuse women", and all manner of shaming language and generally being marked as One Of Them.

I'm not saying all of that has happened here right now, but trust me, it happens.

GroovySpecs:
Maybe I shouldn't be posting here but I want to so I will.

I truly believe marriage has had it's day. Not neccessarily as a romantic concept but definatley as a legal one.

I would much rather have a partner than a husband, and I would rather be someone's partner than be their wife. I am also a firm believer in seperate finances. Split the rent, the bills, even the grocery shopping. But have your own money and your own things. It prevents all those arguments and give you both more freedom and independance.

This is not to suggest that I am in some way against two people making a commitment to each other. I hope that when I meet the right person that eventually we can hire a wonderful venue and invite all of our loved ones to witness us pledge to spend our lives together. I just don't think that the legal contract element of it all is appropriate anymore, I want to spend my life with someone because we fit together, and should we find at some point that that is no longer the case I want us to be free to go our seperate ways.

The thread was written with men in mind, but that doesn't mean I slapped up a 'No Girls Allowed' sign on the door. Very glad you shared =]

Also, interesting fact that may blow some wigs, I am basically(not technically) married myself. Have been with the same wonderful lady since I was 20, lived together for years, and in all the important ways she is my ladypartner for life... And your mindset is absolutely the correct one. It can be said that it's not PC to say there is a "correct" way to go about these things.

Fuck that.

Me and my lady have outlasted a lot of relationships and in our families, friendship groups and work circles we're forever being asked how we have such a calm, stable relationship where we see eye to eye on so much and don't argue like the others do and have been through a lot and lasted so long, and yeah, I can tell you, you're thinking is absolutely the right way to go about it.

Personally, I believe the big disconnect in the definition and perception of marriage is in the fact that typically marriage is initiated as an emotional choice or idea, not always a logical or legal one. 'The heat of the moment', as it were, is always a random trump card that will show up with the best and the worst of people. There is also the perception that marriage is a trap as well. I am not saying that anyone's arguments are correct or incorrect, but the general consensus from most of the posters here indicate that marriage is indeed perceived as a trap and thus best avoided by simply choosing to ignore it.

I personally am a single male, have never really held a long term relationship with anyone, and largely consider myself asexual since I really am not attracted to much of anything. My parents stayed together, most of my family remained happily married, and I had all the benefits of choosing which religion I wanted to follow.

That having been said, I find the idea that I may find someone in my future that I will come to love, cherish, and share everything with at some point a wonderful dream to maintain. Because no matter how committed you are to the person you chose not to marry, the simple truth is that you can walk away anytime you want. Sure, there are physcial decision and ramifications for it. Sure, it may not be any easier to divorce versus splitting. There will still be emotional baggage, of course. But you can. You're not married, after all. And after it's over, that's what you'll tell yourself when you're recovering. At least we weren't married.

By your arguments you state that your relationship will always remain at its strongest BECAUSE at any point you can walk away with no actual commitment put on paper or in society's eyes. Saying that your relationship is the same as marriage except for the ceremony defeats the purpose of marriage as a proclamation. And while I agree that many people get married for the wrong reasons and there should be a way to separate when it does not work, stating that your understanding of marriage is better because you choose not to marry is not necessarily the best answer either.

Most happily married people I know do not speak of it as a trap. They speak of it as a journey with a partner that was more joyous with its proclamation and sharing for all to see. And no, I've never heard another man say to get married because it builds character. That was just stupidity all around.

But the fact that marriage changes people is indeed a real thing. Once you cross that line, once you make that choice, there is the real expectation and belief that you cannot and should not go back. That changes how a person thinks about not only their own life but the lives of those connected with that bond. And that changes you, and not always for the better.

Again, I am not saying anyone is doing the right or wrong thing. I am not saying anyone is more or less committed married versus not married. Just putting my own two cents in while I'm actually thinking about it.

Of course, all of this is sophistry and my own subjective observation.

I await the destruction of my opinions.

Noah Coultrip:

Most happily married people I know do not speak of it as a trap. They speak of it as a journey with a partner that was more joyous with its proclamation and sharing for all to see.

I don't really have anything to say in terms of the meat of your post, other than well put and thanks for the effort of writing all that down.

The point I've highlighted here does make me think though.

Firstly, Happily. That's an incredibly important word in the context of this discussion on risk, no?

But I digress, I'm talking mainly about the proclomation part. It doesn't surprise me at all that you report this, but I would say that it doesn't have anything to do with marriage in and of itself, but more to do with a celebration.

Getting to 23 is more of an "achievement" on paper than getting to 16 or 18, and everyone can drink, but people don't have massive parties for their 23rd do they? It's 18 and first bar tab or sweet 16. A lot of people like being the centre of attention and getting pats on the back and have all their people celebrating them, even if they spent 30 grand to do it.

But you're right about another thing, all signs point to the psychological ramifications of being 'locked in' being a real thing. Even if you know you never want to use it, having the out of technically being able to 'walk away' seems to take pressure off, even if the reality is that if I split with my lady I'd have to find a new place to live, probably change towns, get a new job because I'm changing towns and generally rebuild my life.

I think an actual possible option here could very well be we start a new tradition of making the tenth anniversary of a relationship a massive blowout of an invite-everyone-you-know party to get that celebratory kudos out of the way and cement to everyone you know that what you have is for life. Because I honestly think at this point that a large factor driving up marriage rates is just essentially social norms and a reluctance to have less parties. But honestly I think the whole thing is just another tradition/religious ceremony that we no longer observe as a larger society outside of lip service.

Incidentally, can I just say I love how many of the people posting here are the types who have been here for ages and post rarely.

11). Iīm going to put this one down to most peopleīs experience of MRAs. You have surprised me with how reasonable and non-sexist you are (and I mean that seriously, you seem like a pretty cool guy), but that doesnīt change the fact that many MRAs, at least online, come across not as people looking out for menīs rights, but as misogynist pricks who in reality just want to undo the progress women have made in the last decades. Once again, this doesnīt apply to you. However, since that is the image a lot of people, myself included, have in their head when they thing "MRA", a somewhat negative reaction seems understandable.

That's pretty common, sadly. Not just because of the trolls (this is teh intarwebz, after all), but because that's the image that proponents of mainstream feminism and female privilege (neither of which has anything to do with equality, which is trivially observed) are pushing. People who have had zero actual interaction with an actual MRM use the same minimizing dismissals: "misogynist", "rape apologist", etc..

To be fair, you may want to reconsider painting the entire MRM with that brush. It's no more fair to do so than it is to call all feminists genocidal psychotics based on Hitler Barbie over here.

San Martin:
11). Iīm going to put this one down to most peopleīs experience of MRAs. You have surprised me with how reasonable and non-sexist you are (and I mean that seriously, you seem like a pretty cool guy), but that doesnīt change the fact that many MRAs, at least online, come across not as people looking out for menīs rights, but as misogynist pricks who in reality just want to undo the progress women have made in the last decades. Once again, this doesnīt apply to you. However, since that is the image a lot of people, myself included, have in their head when they thing "MRA", a somewhat negative reaction seems understandable.

How would you react if I was to say that:
"All feminists are man hating bitches who in reality just want to take away human and civil rights from males.".....hm?
Because that's dangerously close to:
"People looking out for menīs rights, but as misogynist pricks who in reality just want to undo the progress women have made in the last decades."

Remember from now on, every time you witness somebody dismiss feminism off-hand, that you are guilty of the same thing.

Both feminists and MRAs have image problems. Surely the two groups should be assisting each other rather than fueling the fire of ignorance.

I personally don't feel disadvantaged in any particular way by getting married- i just see marriage as an ideal system to raise a family in because you've made a life-long commitment to remain with someone all your life to raise children. But then again i'm no expert on the whole thing, don't need to be. (yet)

I think the authors missing important economic reasons for why men may be delaying marriage. It's a lot harder for this generation of young men to find jobs and start a career than it was in the past, so it's only sensible for men to delay marriage until they've found a stable job which offers good career prospects before they can start building a family. I don't really think there's that much of a social or cultural element behind it as the author thinks.

Smeatza:

San Martin:
11). Iīm going to put this one down to most peopleīs experience of MRAs. You have surprised me with how reasonable and non-sexist you are (and I mean that seriously, you seem like a pretty cool guy), but that doesnīt change the fact that many MRAs, at least online, come across not as people looking out for menīs rights, but as misogynist pricks who in reality just want to undo the progress women have made in the last decades. Once again, this doesnīt apply to you. However, since that is the image a lot of people, myself included, have in their head when they thing "MRA", a somewhat negative reaction seems understandable.

How would you react if I was to say that:
"All feminists are man hating bitches who in reality just want to take away human and civil rights from males.".....hm?
Because that's dangerously close to:
"People looking out for menīs rights, but as misogynist pricks who in reality just want to undo the progress women have made in the last decades."

Remember from now on, every time you witness somebody dismiss feminism off-hand, that you are guilty of the same thing.

Both feminists and MRAs have image problems. Surely the two groups should be assisting each other rather than fueling the fire of ignorance.

Speaking from personal experience, I have never met a Men's Rights Activist who was not either totally deluded or a misogynist.

OhJohnNo:
Speaking from personal experience, I have never met a Men's Rights Activist who was not either totally deluded or a misogynist.

And I'm sure many people could say the same of feminists. I sure as hell could until I started frequenting this web site.
Personal experience can be very misleading.

Smeatza:

OhJohnNo:
Speaking from personal experience, I have never met a Men's Rights Activist who was not either totally deluded or a misogynist.

And I'm sure many people could say the same of feminists. I sure as hell could until I started frequenting this web site.

I was going to respond to you, but when I started typing, a captcha came up. Do you know what that captcha was?

image

...OK, now that I've stopped laughing enough to have gained some semblance of thought: you'll forgive me if I find that difficult to believe, considering most MRAs I've met think your average, reasonable feminist is a man-hating dyke.

targren:

11). Iīm going to put this one down to most peopleīs experience of MRAs. You have surprised me with how reasonable and non-sexist you are (and I mean that seriously, you seem like a pretty cool guy), but that doesnīt change the fact that many MRAs, at least online, come across not as people looking out for menīs rights, but as misogynist pricks who in reality just want to undo the progress women have made in the last decades. Once again, this doesnīt apply to you. However, since that is the image a lot of people, myself included, have in their head when they thing "MRA", a somewhat negative reaction seems understandable.

That's pretty common, sadly. Not just because of the trolls (this is teh intarwebz, after all), but because that's the image that proponents of mainstream feminism and female privilege (neither of which has anything to do with equality, which is trivially observed) are pushing. People who have had zero actual interaction with an actual MRM use the same minimizing dismissals: "misogynist", "rape apologist", etc..

To be fair, you may want to reconsider painting the entire MRM with that brush. It's no more fair to do so than it is to call all feminists genocidal psychotics based on Hitler Barbie over here.

This thread has already convinced me that not every MRA is sexist so, as you say, I'll try to avoid painting them all with the same brush. We're completely opposed of everything else of course, for I example I think your saying that mainstream feminism is not about equality is completely incorrect. However, from now on I will take into account that there are decent MRAs, and at least give them a chance before assuming them to be sexist.

Also, to clarify, I will say that as a feminist I do recognise the presence of discrimination against men in certain circumnstances. It isn't the raw ideology of the MRM to which I object, but the attitudes of a good number of the people who -from my personal experience- follow it.

Retrograde:

San Martin:
I don't know what to think about the OP. On the one hand his writing is coherent and fluent, suggesting him to be intelligent, but on the other his arguments indicate that he is at best a Men's Rights Activist, and at worst a MGTOW, also known as the spewers of some of the most idiotic garbage on the internet. I don't know what kind of mental gymnastics you'd have to perform to come to the ridiculous conclusion that men have it worse than women, but my God these people seem to be capable of them.

If I don't get married it'll be because I see it as an outdated and unnecessary institution, not because I'm misguided enough to think women are horrible bloodsuckers who want to divorce me, take my house and children away and then force me to pay them every last penny I have.

Oh, but of course, who cares what I have to say? I treat women as equals and with the same respect I treat men, which makes me a "beta-male", a worthless piece of garbage who's holding humanity back. Jesus fucking Christ.

Speaking of mental gymnastics...

Firstly, you don't know what to think of me. Good. Quite frankly I like to think that over the span of my far-too-many-years-to-be-doing-this-gaming-lark lifespan, I've earned the right to not be laid out like a Parisian courtesan a handful of posts into my recent foray into fora.

Secondly, I don't think it's arrogant to recognise a compliment, so thank you, I like to think I am smarter than your average bear and I genuinely appreciate any compliments directed toward my writing. In an age of text speak I quite like putting the effort into the Good Stuff.

Pleasantries complete, you seem to be misinformed, and you're putting quite a lot of words in my mouth and I have little appreciation for either of these things.

I would say if anything I support 'men'. I don't associate particularly within either MGTOW or MRA circles, despite knowing of and watching both from afar. I don't really go in for labels because then it's little more than a tribe. Your opinion about people that care about male issues seems quite informed by 'Tumblr Feminists'(and their kin), and I don't really want to go down that rabbit hole, but the bottom line is nobody is saying 'man have it worse than women' and dropping the mic.

There are real and very serious legal benefits to being a woman and some of these are financed by resources gouged directly from former men in her life. These were once relevant, good even, since when these laws were created if a woman didn't have some kind of lifeline gifted to her then she might find herself going from an upper class lifestyle to effectively living on the streets. While that is no longer a reality for women, the archaic legal system is still transferring wealth from men, to women, at an incredible amount. Never even mind, as some have said, various battles about custody, how easy it is for a woman to just say 'abuse' and *instantly* completely deny the father all access to his children for sometimes years at a go, with no penalty for abusing that system and outright lying.

And let this thread be proof that if a man is going to speak up for his fellow men and let them know that conversations are finally starting to be had, *without saying anything negative about women*, he better be swiftly prepared to defend himself from attacks of his character, attacks on other mens character, "stereotyping", "Not All Women Are Like That", "Misogynist", "men abuse women", and all manner of shaming language and generally being marked as One Of Them.

I'm not saying all of that has happened here right now, but trust me, it happens.

I apologise. Most of my moaning wasn't specifically about you, but you're right, it did basically amount to putting words into your mouth, so I'm sorry about that. You are also right that, having said nothing negative about women, I attacked you personally and I don't think I was the only one. I still believe that one can justifiably presume that someone who starts defending men's rights is likely to turn out to be sexist later, but it was wrong of me not to give you a chance.

Just a minor point, I've never been on Tumblr, and don't know what 'Tumblr feminism' is. I'm going to guess they're some of those those over-the-top crazy people who don't in any way represent mainstream feminism but some people assume do, leading them to incorrectly dismiss it as an insane cult or something like that.

Smeatza:

San Martin:
11). Iīm going to put this one down to most peopleīs experience of MRAs. You have surprised me with how reasonable and non-sexist you are (and I mean that seriously, you seem like a pretty cool guy), but that doesnīt change the fact that many MRAs, at least online, come across not as people looking out for menīs rights, but as misogynist pricks who in reality just want to undo the progress women have made in the last decades. Once again, this doesnīt apply to you. However, since that is the image a lot of people, myself included, have in their head when they thing "MRA", a somewhat negative reaction seems understandable.

How would you react if I was to say that:
"All feminists are man hating bitches who in reality just want to take away human and civil rights from males.".....hm?
Because that's dangerously close to:
"People looking out for menīs rights, but as misogynist pricks who in reality just want to undo the progress women have made in the last decades."

Remember from now on, every time you witness somebody dismiss feminism off-hand, that you are guilty of the same thing.

Both feminists and MRAs have image problems. Surely the two groups should be assisting each other rather than fueling the fire of ignorance.

I know later on in this thread you say that personal experience can be misleading, so I'm sure you'll completely disagree with what I say now. However, I deny your accusation, my reason being simply that I trust my personal experience and believe myself to have enough evidence to consider that most of the MRM is sexist. I don't believe that because they're defending men's rights, there's nothing wrong with that. I believe it because they defend men's rights but, as a connected but different thing, are also sexist against women. At the same time I consider people who dismiss feminism to have been misled by their personal experience. Double standard? Maybe, but I'd sure as hell argue it's justified.

Oops. Delete please mod.

OhJohnNo:

Speaking from personal experience, I have never met a Men's Rights Activist who was not either totally deluded or a misogynist.

Well how many MRAs have you met? Cause you can now say you've spoken to at least two who are neither of those things. I'm quite willing to go out on a limb here and say that you're experience of "MRAs" amounts to being told that anyone critical of feminism is an MRA, and that would include unfortunate lackwits on various comments sections. Easily the most visible and popular active MRA is a woman.

http://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat

So yes, respectfully sir, in MY personal experience, a lot of people are more than happy to allude to greater knowledge than they actually have to defend ideas they haven't questioned themselves but 'know' to be right when push comes to shove. And unless you're an active feminist(and I do mean showing up at rallies and screaming at audience members) I severly doubt you've met very many actual MRAs. Telling people you belong to that particular group isn't exactly going to win friends and influence people.

There is a word for one who uses misinformed or outright wrong views and/or lies as the basis for their dealings with people, but I can't... Oh yes. I remember what it is now. But despite the fact that you can't point me to MRA endorsed violence or intimidation(because it's never happened to my knowledge), fancy seeing some proud, angry, bigoted violent feminists?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0

The point of me linking to this isn't to say men are victims, or feminism is evil or any of that. It's to point out that violence is violence and bigots are bigots.

San Martin:
Snip

Your assumption is correct, more or less. If you're interested Amazing Atheist did a pretty funny vid on that particular brand of crazy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eCnmeaoGMA

Now of course its not the most academically minded piece of work in the world, but it is a laugh and there is truth beneath the comedy(isn't there always?)

As for your apology, thank you sir. And I genuinely mean that, thank you.

I didn't take anything you said too hard, because as I said, *every* time I've initiated these conversations(and I mean every), regardless of how little women have actually been mentioned, regardless of how the attention is on men, regardless of anything you actually write or how strictly positive you are, there WILL be stories of female domestic abuse, personal insults, you have no right, I can't believe you think men have it worse then women... Constantly and without fail, usually from men more than women.

But what is rare is an acknowledgement of the attitude and an apology.

Just read you immediately turn around and outright say you think that, from what must be a dazzling breadth of experience, assuming the MRM is 'mostly sexist' is justified. Because you feel it is.

When something appears to good to be true, they turn around and tell you that their bigotry is acceptable because reasons. So what rally were you at that met you some real MRAs? Don't suppose you're Canadian or live near Edmonton?

Retrograde:

OhJohnNo:

Speaking from personal experience, I have never met a Men's Rights Activist who was not either totally deluded or a misogynist.

Well how many MRAs have you met? Cause you can now say you've spoken to at least two who are neither of those things. I'm quite willing to go out on a limb here and say that you're experience of "MRAs" amounts to being told that anyone critical of feminism is an MRA, and that would include unfortunate lackwits on various comments sections. Easily the most visible and popular active MRA is a woman.

http://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat

So yes, respectfully sir, in MY personal experience, a lot of people are more than happy to allude to greater knowledge than they actually have to defend ideas they haven't questioned themselves but 'know' to be right when push comes to shove. And unless you're an active feminist(and I do mean showing up at rallies and screaming at audience members) I severly doubt you've met very many actual MRAs. Telling people you belong to that particular group isn't exactly going to win friends and influence people.

There is a word for one who uses misinformed or outright wrong views and/or lies as the basis for their dealings with people, but I can't... Oh yes. I remember what it is now. But despite the fact that you can't point me to MRA endorsed violence or intimidation(because it's never happened to my knowledge), fancy seeing some proud, angry, bigoted violent feminists?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0

The point of me linking to this isn't to say men are victims, or feminism is evil or any of that. It's to point out that violence is violence and bigots are bigots.

Actually, I'm mostly talking about people here, on the escapist - people like Matthew_Lane and his little posse of misogynists, as well as all the other stains that pop up on every thread remotely relating to feminism to proclaim how men are the REAL victims and women have it better in society. While the word "met" isn't quite appropriate here, as I've merely seen them, there's also r/mensrights, Men Going Their Own Way, The Spearhead (which is linked & cited sadly often), and youtubers like TheAmazingAtheist and Thunderf00t. Infuriating and intolerable, the lot of them.

As for that second video, I stopped at Warren Farrell's ridiculously wrong quote about the "patriarchy" (proving he doesn't understand feminist concepts). Were those people seriously mocking a sign that said "date rape is not exciting"?

Still, you have reminded me that actually, I did meet precisely one nice MRA once - she was a woman, and a feminist. The problem was she didn't understand the connotations carried by the term "Men's Rights Activist" - she stopped calling herself one pretty soon after discovering the rest of the movement.

Smeatza:

Both feminists and MRAs have image problems. Surely the two groups should be assisting each other rather than fueling the fire of ignorance.

IMO it's wrong to equate the two. Feminism has an image problem because of it's own actions. MRAs have an image problem because of feminists. That may seem like an out there thing to say, but I can back it up.

Ask Erin Pizzey, the founder of one of the first modern womens refuges in the world, and a staunch opponent of feminism who recieved such a torrent of violence and backlash from the movement as a whole that she fled the UK.

Ask the people who tried to attend Warren Farrells talk on father son relations and suicide and were met with violence and outright hatred.

Ask the people on this very forum who 'just know' that MRAs are, for the most part, all raging sexists whose entire movement is basically one giant tantrum that women are allowed some of the toys now and we want them barefoot and back in the caves. The people who write here who have pointed out their own blatant bigotry, but it's ok because it's directed at men/in service to feminism so nobody actually cares. And they're right.

RIP Earl Silverman.

There is indeed an image problem between feminists and MRAs, this is obviously true. But one group has repeatedly tried to crush, demonise and tear down the other and this is an undeniable fact, oft denied. And yet, for merely pointing this out, I'm a misogynist to some. Funny how feminism 'isn't only about women' until you criticise it.

San Martin:
I know later on in this thread you say that personal experience can be misleading, so I'm sure you'll completely disagree with what I say now. However, I deny your accusation, my reason being simply that I trust my personal experience and believe myself to have enough evidence to consider that most of the MRM is sexist. I don't believe that because they're defending men's rights, there's nothing wrong with that. I believe it because they defend men's rights but, as a connected but different thing, are also sexist against women. At the same time I consider people who dismiss feminism to have been misled by their personal experience. Double standard? Maybe, but I'd sure as hell argue it's justified.

OhJohnNo:
you'll forgive me if I find that difficult to believe, considering most MRAs I've met think your average, reasonable feminist is a man-hating dyke.

My experience with feminists is overwhelmingly negative.


The only difference between you and me being that I'm open minded enough to acknowledge that my personal experience may not be indicative of the reality of the situation. Hell my perceived personal experience might not even be an accurate representation of my actual personal experience.
And so I consciously make an effort to suppress my overwhelmingly negative, instinctive, gut response to feminism.

Another example? Let's say I've had my car stolen 3 times. And each time it was by a black guy. I might say "All black people are thieves, my personal experience proves it." I might believe that my personal experience justifies my discriminative opinion but I would be wrong. It might even be true that it's more likely one's car will get stolen by a black guy than a guy of another race, but there are social, cultural and economic factors at play, all of which I have to ignore to make my "All black people are thieves, my personal experience shows it" statement.

My dad's ex wife crushed him through divorce. He has two kids that he hasn't seen in 18 years, he lost a house that had been in his family for 5 generations, and paid half of his wage in child support despite the fact that his ex wife earned about the same wage as he did.
He married my mum with a hefty wad of prenups, and only then because it made it easier for her to get into university as a mature student.
So my standing has always been to not bother. Men rarely see a legitimate bonus to being married - apart from the debatable conception of simple satisfaction in being married.

EDIT: Just to be on the safe side, I want to make it clear that I don't see men getting a bum deal everywhere in life. Just household product advertising (which makes sense) and marriage. By the same token, I also don't think women get such a bad hand in life either.

OhJohnNo:

Actually, I'm mostly talking about people here, on the escapist - people like Matthew_Lane and his little posse of misogynists, as well as all the other stains that pop up on every thread remotely relating to feminism to proclaim how men are the REAL victims and women have it better in society. While the word "met" isn't quite appropriate here, as I've merely seen them, there's also r/mensrights, Men Going Their Own Way, The Spearhead (which is linked & cited sadly often), and youtubers like TheAmazingAtheist and Thunderf00t. Infuriating and intolerable, the lot of them.

As for that second video, I stopped at Warren Farrell's ridiculously wrong quote about the "patriarchy" (proving he doesn't understand feminist concepts). Were those people seriously mocking a sign that said "date rape is not exciting"?

Still, you have reminded me that actually, I did meet precisely one nice MRA once - she was a woman, and a feminist. The problem was she didn't understand the connotations carried by the term "Men's Rights Activist" - she stopped calling herself one pretty soon after discovering the rest of the movement.

Right, so you've actually spoken to one, who was also a feminist, who you then convinced was wrong to call herself an MRA because she didn't 'understand the connotations'. THATs your 'I've never met an MRA...' backing? One woman, who clearly wasn't exactly on the front lines in terms of conviction? Apart from that some 'Escapists'(of which you can name one), and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that they regularly and proudly share stories of the MRA movement, or share male positive stuff like I've done here.

I won't assume that they're simply people that say things about women that you don't like and that means you've labelled them a misogynist, which means you've labelled them an MRA.

But either way, that's still two in the bad camp, and two you've spoken to here, in the good camp. So we've got a few, damn, maybe even *hundreds* of people online saying nasty things. I'll give you that. But then, whenever you see actual *activists*, as in, people talking and protesting in life, it's the feminists that are screaming in peoples faces and disrupting talks and being violent and threatening families, and the MRAs that are taking it as best they can.

What's your thinking there? If you're happy to speak to one feminist MRA and write off the entire movement as woman hating, then surely you're going to see these wretched displays of outright fear and hostility towards male advocacy groups and condemn them to the pits? It would only be fair.

If you think TAA and Thunderfoot are MRAs you're wrong, and you should honestly examine your thinking. AFAIK F00t has only thrown his hat into the ring regarding A)the outright hypocrisy(and profiteering) of Rebecca Watson and A+, and B)the outright biased misinformation(and profiteering) of Sarkeesian.

Direct question - Since neither of these men have ever given any hints whatsoever about being an MRA or believing in them or supporting them at all(and TAA would at least, he definitely says what he thinks), why have you labelled them MRAs? Is it because they say things you don't like, therefore you throw them in the dumpster?

Stopped 20 seconds in. Nice.

So feminists don't think that The Patriarchy is a societal system put in place by men, for men, at the express cost and oppression of women?

Also, watch the whole thing. The reason I linked it isn't because of agreeing or disagreeing about Farrell, and he wasn't talking about feminism so his understanding of it is largely irrelevant, he's interested in mens issues, women didn't actually factor into his talk at all really.

It's to do with the fact that despite some mean things being typed you can't show me anything CLOSE to that level of violence(of which you can show me none) and hysteria(of which you can show me a little, online) being carried out by the 'misogynist' MRA, and yet you're more then happy to let your blind bigotry lead you and actually be proud of that.

I'll be fine because all of my stuff is junk my girlfriend wouldn't want anyway :D

Smeatza:

My experience with feminists is overwhelmingly negative.


The only difference between you and me being that I'm open minded enough to acknowledge that my personal experience may not be indicative of the reality of the situation. Hell my perceived personal experience might not even be an accurate representation of my actual personal experience.
And so I consciously make an effort to suppress my overwhelmingly negative, instinctive, gut response to feminism.

Another example? Let's say I've had my car stolen 3 times. And each time it was by a black guy. I might say "All black people are thieves, my personal experience proves it." I might believe that my personal experience justifies my discriminative opinion but I would be wrong. It might even be true that it's more likely one's car will get stolen by a black guy than a guy of another race, but there are social, cultural and economic factors at play, all of which I have to ignore to make my "All black people are thieves, my personal experience shows it" statement.

Hmm... you're talking sense, I can't deny it. The problem is I find it difficult to take the Men's Rights Movement seriously when the goals are, as I see it, rather silly. Feminism already covers "gender equality", retaining the name only - as I understand it - because women have further to climb up the ladder before they reach equality than men do; what's the point of having an entirely separate movement to advocate something already advocated by another movement? Considering the behaviour I've observed, it's very easy for me to dismiss the MRM as a reactionary movement perpetuated by people who interpret feminism's attack on male privilege as discriminatory.

(I'll be with you in a minute, Retrograde)

Right, K. I don't like making large posts on the Escapist as it takes up far too much time, but it seems I have little choice here.

Retrograde:

Right, so you've actually spoken to one, who was also a feminist, who you then convinced was wrong to call herself an MRA because she didn't 'understand the connotations'. THATs your 'I've never met an MRA...' backing? One woman, who clearly wasn't exactly on the front lines in terms of conviction?

Oh, I didn't "convince" her. This was on an IRC channel - I brought up how MRAs were dicks (can't remember why exactly), she pretty much said "what's wrong with being for men's rights?" and then I watched the other members of the channel enlighten her on the difference between being for men's rights (otherwise known as feminism, considering that it's for equal rights for both sexes) and being a Men's Rights Activist. In fact, she eventually made an excellent forum post on this whole issue: http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?272001-Do-you-ever-feel-like-the-villain-for-disagreeing&p=1045447233&viewfull=1#post1045447233

Apart from that some 'Escapists'(of which you can name one), and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that they regularly and proudly share stories of the MRA movement, or share male positive stuff like I've done here.

No, they mostly restricted themselves to getting annoyed every time females were brought up. I will admit I cannot remember any specific names (other than possibly general3? Rings a bell) other than lane as they all blurred together. Lane was far too memorable to ever forget, though.

I won't assume that they're simply people that say things about women that you don't like and that means you've labelled them a misogynist, which means you've labelled them an MRA.
...

If you think TAA and Thunderfoot are MRAs you're wrong, and you should honestly examine your thinking. AFAIK F00t has only thrown his hat into the ring regarding A)the outright hypocrisy(and profiteering) of Rebecca Watson and A+, and B)the outright biased misinformation(and profiteering) of Sarkeesian.

Direct question - Since neither of these men have ever given any hints whatsoever about being an MRA or believing in them or supporting them at all(and TAA would at least, he definitely says what he thinks), why have you labelled them MRAs? Is it because they say things you don't like, therefore you throw them in the dumpster?

I have to admit culpability here - I did indeed assume that TheAmazingAtheist was a Men's Rights Activist due to the fact that (far too) many of his videos focus on issues regarding men's rights and anti-feminist topics. That said, I hope you'll forgive me for dismissing him, considering his rants go a bit beyond "saying things I don't like". It's a similar issue (though not so extreme) with Thunderf00t - so, yes, I thought the boot fit. But then, I'm also the type who believes everybody who is "not a feminist, but for equal rights" is actually a feminist regardless of what they think - I don't place too much emphasis on what someone defines themselves as.

But either way, that's still two in the bad camp, and two you've spoken to here, in the good camp. So we've got a few, damn, maybe even *hundreds* of people online saying nasty things. I'll give you that. But then, whenever you see actual *activists*, as in, people talking and protesting in life, it's the feminists that are screaming in peoples faces and disrupting talks and being violent and threatening families, and the MRAs that are taking it as best they can.

Really? Because all the feminists I've met in real life are normal, happy, well-adjusted people (granted, one of them also had infuriatingly awful music taste, but I'm just about willing to put up with that). The MRAs, meanwhile, are the type who giggle over the word "rape" and stare at pretty girls when they think they're not looking.

Stopped 20 seconds in. Nice.

So feminists don't think that The Patriarchy is a societal system put in place by men, for men, at the express cost and oppression of women?

The patriarchy (a misleadingly-named concept, I agree) is the system of values left over from when society was an actual patriarchy (i.e men were the only ones allowed to vote, etc.) The values that say women should raise children in the home while men should be out working, that deem feminine behaviour weak and unbecoming of a man... hell, just see the RelicNews forums link I gave you earlier, it's a good primer.

Also, watch the whole thing. The reason I linked it isn't because of agreeing or disagreeing about Farrell, and he wasn't talking about feminism so his understanding of it is largely irrelevant, he's interested in mens issues, women didn't actually factor into his talk at all really.

It's to do with the fact that despite some mean things being typed you can't show me anything CLOSE to that level of violence(of which you can show me none) and hysteria(of which you can show me a little, online) being carried out by the 'misogynist' MRA, and yet you're more then happy to let your blind bigotry lead you and actually be proud of that.

Arright, I'll watch the video.

image

OK, I watched it. Yeah, sure, some dickheads (saying "you fucking scum" over and over isn't exactly the most rational responce one could have, is it?) but I'd like to know the full story - what did Farrel say that drove them to this protest? I mean, I already know he has an incorrect definition of the patriarchy, but could you give me his full quote I saw being labelled as rape-apologism?

EDIT: I'm going for a 40k game with my friend now, so I'll be gone a few hours and won't be able to respond during that time.

Thank you Retrograde for your thoughtful remarks. I truly thought I would be shot down immediately for straying a bit from the established path.

Retrograde:
snip

I find it difficult not to agree.
I do always try to give feminists the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the demonisation of MRA activists, but I'm almost always disappointed.

OhJohnNo:
Feminism already covers "gender equality", retaining the name only - as I understand it - because women have further to climb up the ladder before they reach equality than men do; what's the point of having an entirely separate movement to advocate something already advocated by another movement?

It's debatable whether women in the developed western world have "further to climb up the ladder." I would personally say both genders are on the same rung, with a ways to go.

The official party line of the Conservatives/Republicans is "we care about the poor."
The official party line for feminists is "we want equality for men and women."
But that doesn't make it true.
The feminist movement simply doesn't address ways in which men are less equal.
And it definitely doesn't address those issues with the same urgency or fervor.
A more accurate party line for the feminist movement would be "We almost exclusively concentrate on issues affecting females but if you're lucky addressing one of these issues might benefit men collaterally."

When was the last time the feminist movement addressed the issues highlighted by the OP? Or male expendability? Or the fact that men have less rights when it comes to children?

They don't, and just those three issues are enough to warrant the founding of a new movement in my opinion. I'm sure a Men's Rights Activist could name many more issues.

OhJohnNo:
Considering the behaviour I've observed, it's very easy for me to dismiss the MRM as a reactionary movement perpetuated by people who interpret feminism's attack on male privilege as discriminatory.

Well you're wrong to do so. And your kind of bigotry is one of the factors that makes me have to work so hard to give feminists and their movement the benefit of the doubt.

I do have a question for you though, even if the MRA movement is marred with hatred (which I don't believe it is), does that discredit everything it stands for?
More importantly, how does that make it any different than feminism?
Take at look at the feminist movement in the 70's. There was a genuine contempt for men emanating from the movement at that point in it's history. Many people were intimidated by this and tried to shut it down.
If more people had your attitude back then, then the feminist movement wouldn't have survived past the 70's.

Retrograde:

San Martin:
Snip

Your assumption is correct, more or less. If you're interested Amazing Atheist did a pretty funny vid on that particular brand of crazy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eCnmeaoGMA

Now of course its not the most academically minded piece of work in the world, but it is a laugh and there is truth beneath the comedy(isn't there always?)

As for your apology, thank you sir. And I genuinely mean that, thank you.

I didn't take anything you said too hard, because as I said, *every* time I've initiated these conversations(and I mean every), regardless of how little women have actually been mentioned, regardless of how the attention is on men, regardless of anything you actually write or how strictly positive you are, there WILL be stories of female domestic abuse, personal insults, you have no right, I can't believe you think men have it worse then women... Constantly and without fail, usually from men more than women.

But what is rare is an acknowledgement of the attitude and an apology.

Just read you immediately turn around and outright say you think that, from what must be a dazzling breadth of experience, assuming the MRM is 'mostly sexist' is justified. Because you feel it is.

When something appears to good to be true, they turn around and tell you that their bigotry is acceptable because reasons. So what rally were you at that met you some real MRAs? Don't suppose you're Canadian or live near Edmonton?

Unfortunately where I am right now I can't watch videos due to a slow connection. Since it was the Amazing Atheist it was probably funny. I'm not too hot on him as a person ever since his infamous comments towards that rape victim, but I can't deny that all his screaming and shouting makes me laugh. Simple pleasures!

Honestly, this one thread has already changed some of my pre-conceptions and I am willing to accept your suggestion of the possibility that my personal experience of MRAs has misled me. What you've seen of feminism has clearly very negatively coloured your opinion of it, and I believe you to be wrong in degrading and dismissing it, by the same taken that you criticise my dismissal of MRAs.

It would take more than just this one thread to turn my opinions completely around, just as I'm sure you'd need a lot of evidence to the contrary to change your ideas about feminism, so for now I'll continue to stand by my beliefs despite how objectionable and erroneous they may appear to you. Nonetheless, retrospectively it was silly of me to make the assumption that every single MRA must be sexist, and I thank you for having made a thread which got me to realise that.

To put it in one sentence: just because each of us represents something which the other considers to be a hive of bigotry doesn't mean we can't get along (sorry if I'm being facetious).

In sweden its really not a big issue- exept if you have a really wealthy job and share the assets, while her job is very poorly payed- then I guess it could be shitty.

But I get americans not marrying- having to pay alymony to the girl, giving up like half your pay for her for years and years- thats messed up.

Id never marry under such laws.

San Martin:

This thread has already convinced me that not every MRA is sexist so, as you say, I'll try to avoid painting them all with the same brush. We're completely opposed of everything else of course, for I example I think your saying that mainstream feminism is not about equality is completely incorrect.

If what you say is true, and you are, personally, for actual equality, then we're not as "completely opposed" as you may think. What is it that you consider to be "mainstream" feminism, if I may ask? Because when I see feminists interviewed in the media these days, which is generally what it takes to be considered "mainstream" -- that is, what's expressed to the public at large -- it's usually some contributor to Jezebel or HuffPo, some mouthpiece for NOW, or some clueless kid on a college campus somewhere. While the latter can, admittedly, go either way, it's trivial to find examples from the former where they openly *support* the very discrimination against men that you agree exists. How is that not antithetical to "equality?"

If you have to lie about an "inequality" to make it unequal, that's not about equality (e.g. "Patriarchy Theory", "Wage Gap", "Rape Culture".. most of the feminist arsenal, really).

Supporting (much less "demanding") special legal protections for one group over another is not equality (e.g. feminist opposition to a gender-neutral alternative to the Violence Against Women Act, strong gender imbalance in reproductive and parental rights and legislation)

Inconsistent ("double") standards to attract and make things more easy for one group over another is not equality. (e.g. Behavior, education, rules of evidence, conviction sentencing).

Decrying censorship of one's side while demanding it for one's opponents is most assuredly not equal (the apparently neverending charlie-foxtrot that is University of Toronto, most blatantly).

Just a few examples [1]

Now if you're truly for equality, I'm right there with you, and I'm not saying you can't call yourself a "feminist" if that's what floats your boat. I'm just saying that, in doing so, you should really make sure it means what you think it means. It's a movement, so you need to look at what the people are doing, not what the dictionary says. By flying that banner, you're adopting on yourself all of the baggage that comes with the brand name and, honestly, undermining what you say you're trying to do.

And yes, lest I be accused of hypocricy: I do recognize the same problem with many of the M[H]RM's approaches, and that's why I rarely openly identify with them. I did so here on the chance that you are what you seem when taken at face value and might value the dialogue.

There is still an important difference, though. Using AVFM (the M[H]RA community that it seems feminists most love to hate) as my experience, they attack feminist *ideology*, where as feminist ideology attacks a *gender*. Actual misogyny (of the "women are evil/inferior" variety, not the "feminist theory is BS" meaning it's taken) and advocacy of violence invites an instant and intimate meeting with the banhammer - one of their better policies, IMO.

[1] Citations available, but I'm on a break at work so I don't have time to dig them up just now. If you want them, just send me a PM

Smeatza:

San Martin:
I know later on in this thread you say that personal experience can be misleading, so I'm sure you'll completely disagree with what I say now. However, I deny your accusation, my reason being simply that I trust my personal experience and believe myself to have enough evidence to consider that most of the MRM is sexist. I don't believe that because they're defending men's rights, there's nothing wrong with that. I believe it because they defend men's rights but, as a connected but different thing, are also sexist against women. At the same time I consider people who dismiss feminism to have been misled by their personal experience. Double standard? Maybe, but I'd sure as hell argue it's justified.

My experience with feminists is overwhelmingly negative.


The only difference between you and me being that I'm open minded enough to acknowledge that my personal experience may not be indicative of the reality of the situation. Hell my perceived personal experience might not even be an accurate representation of my actual personal experience.
And so I consciously make an effort to suppress my overwhelmingly negative, instinctive, gut response to feminism.

Another example? Let's say I've had my car stolen 3 times. And each time it was by a black guy. I might say "All black people are thieves, my personal experience proves it." I might believe that my personal experience justifies my discriminative opinion but I would be wrong. It might even be true that it's more likely one's car will get stolen by a black guy than a guy of another race, but there are social, cultural and economic factors at play, all of which I have to ignore to make my "All black people are thieves, my personal experience shows it" statement.

I repeat to you what I said to Retrograde. Thanks to this thread I have realised that there exists a possibility that my personal experience has misled me. I mean, if I can be completely convinced that your reaction to feminism has been formed by only listening to the most extreme and non-representative sectors, then it's not inconceivable that the same has happened with my attitudes towards MRAs. I don't think it's very likely, and the evidence still isn't sufficiently strong for me to turn around and start defending MRAs as a whole, but I can at least recognise that not every last one of them is sexist.

I came to my conclusions about feminism and men's rights activism after a lot of thought and consideration, and the fact that they differ from yours does not mean that I'm simply obeying a gut reaction of mine. Therefore I think you were unfair in insulting me as closed-minded, because the fact is that I am willing to listen to and learn from other people's arguments.

targren:

San Martin:

This thread has already convinced me that not every MRA is sexist so, as you say, I'll try to avoid painting them all with the same brush. We're completely opposed of everything else of course, for I example I think your saying that mainstream feminism is not about equality is completely incorrect.

If what you say is true, and you are, personally, for actual equality, then we're not as "completely opposed" as you may think. What is it that you consider to be "mainstream" feminism, if I may ask? Because when I see feminists interviewed in the media these days, which is generally what it takes to be considered "mainstream" -- that is, what's expressed to the public at large -- it's usually some contributor to Jezebel or HuffPo, some mouthpiece for NOW, or some clueless kid on a college campus somewhere. While the latter can, admittedly, go either way, it's trivial to find examples from the former where they openly *support* the very discrimination against men that you agree exists. How is that not antithetical to "equality?"

If you have to lie about an "inequality" to make it unequal, that's not about equality (e.g. "Patriarchy Theory", "Wage Gap", "Rape Culture".. most of the feminist arsenal, really).

Supporting (much less "demanding") special legal protections for one group over another is not equality (e.g. feminist opposition to a gender-neutral alternative to the Violence Against Women Act, strong gender imbalance in reproductive and parental rights and legislation)

Inconsistent ("double") standards to attract and make things more easy for one group over another is not equality. (e.g. Behavior, education, rules of evidence, conviction sentencing).

Decrying censorship of one's side while demanding it for one's opponents is most assuredly not equal (the apparently neverending charlie-foxtrot that is University of Toronto, most blatantly).

Just a few examples [1]

Now if you're truly for equality, I'm right there with you, and I'm not saying you can't call yourself a "feminist" if that's what floats your boat. I'm just saying that, in doing so, you should really make sure it means what you think it means. It's a movement, so you need to look at what the people are doing, not what the dictionary says. By flying that banner, you're adopting on yourself all of the baggage that comes with the brand name and, honestly, undermining what you say you're trying to do.

And yes, lest I be accused of hypocricy: I do recognize the same problem with many of the M[H]RM's approaches, and that's why I rarely openly identify with them. I did so here on the chance that you are what you seem when taken at face value and might value the dialogue.

There is still an important difference, though. Using AVFM (the M[H]RA community that it seems feminists most love to hate) as my experience, they attack feminist *ideology*, where as feminist ideology attacks a *gender*. Actual misogyny (of the "women are evil/inferior" variety, not the "feminist theory is BS" meaning it's taken) and advocacy of violence invites an instant and intimate meeting with the banhammer - one of their better policies, IMO.

We can both be completely for equality and at the same time clash on almost every issue. The three examples which you referred to as lies for example: "Patriarchy Theory", "Wage Gap" and "Rape Culture". I'm sure our opinions on those issues differ wildly. "Patriarchy Theory" as I understand it means that human societies historically have always been run principally by men and primarily benefited men. I completely agree to the veracity of that. And yes, I believe that women are disadvantaged in the world of work, specifically when it comes to higher up positions, and as a whole (not talking individual cases) have more difficulty getting those jobs and are paid less for them. I'm not 100% on whether society's attitudes towards rape can accurately be called a "Rape Culture", but I am totally sure that rape is far too common, not taken seriously enough and that far more women are directly victimised by rapists than men are.

I imagine you will wholly disagree with that analysis. That doesn't mean we're not both in favour of equality, it simply says that we believe inequality to exist in different forms and to the detriment of different people. Personally, I'm not really in the mood right now to debate these things, so if you're happy to do the same then I think we should just shake hands, state that we both adhere to the broad principal of gender equality, and leave it at that. This is the Escapist, I am sure these topics will come up again and that there'll be more opportunites to tear each other's throats out over them.

As for what mainstream feminism is, in reality the whole thing's too nebulous and multi-faceted to narrow down to one predominant movement, especially once you take into account different religions, nations, ethnic groups etc. I'm sorry I can't give you a satisfactory answer, but I'm really not an expert.

[1] Citations available, but I'm on a break at work so I don't have time to dig them up just now. If you want them, just send me a PM

Retrograde:

San Martin:

Unfortunately where I am right now I can't watch videos due to a slow connection. Since it was the Amazing Atheist it was probably funny. I'm not too hot on him as a person ever since his infamous comments towards that rape victim, but I can't deny that all his screaming and shouting makes me laugh. Simple pleasures!

Honestly, this one thread has already changed some of my pre-conceptions and I am willing to accept your suggestion of the possibility that my personal experience of MRAs has misled me. What you've seen of feminism has clearly very negatively coloured your opinion of it, and I believe you to be wrong in degrading and dismissing it, by the same taken that you criticise my dismissal of MRAs.

It would take more than just this one thread to turn my opinions completely around, just as I'm sure you'd need a lot of evidence to the contrary to change your ideas about feminism, so for now I'll continue to stand by my beliefs despite how objectionable and erroneous they may appear to you. Nonetheless, retrospectively it was silly of me to make the assumption that every single MRA must be sexist, and I thank you for having made a thread which got me to realise that.

To put it in one sentence: just because each of us represents something which the other considers to be a hive of bigotry doesn't mean we can't get along (sorry if I'm being facetious).

I want to be able to give you credit because taking any sort of reflective notion online and actually admitting to it is such a rare and beautiful thing...

But then you go and equate my feelings based on years of actual conversing, this thread as a living proof including your own contributions to it, multiple videos of straight up harassment and violence, death threats to the point of women fleeing for their lives, actual published works of outright vile hate speech, real life smear campaigns and repeated attempts to demonise and marginalise dissenters... I could go on. And never even mind that here, like every other time and every other place, when you bring these things up people just straight up ignore all of it to the point where you aren't even sure what you're seeing anymore...

But you equate THAT, with your feelings that MRAs are bigots too, because you just do.

And we're even are we?

You're like a unicorn, full of nobility, every move stamped with honor.
That then takes a massive shit.

God dammit Retrograde! Call me a bigot or closed-minded if you so wish, but I can do without being compared to a unicorn taking a dump!

No! I said my opinions on MRAs came from a lot of consideration, and I don't feel that way just "because I do".

I don't think there's any way for me to keep this debate going without my having to go into long explanations as to why I think the MRM is full of shit, and why I think most feminists aren't. I'm sorry, but I just cannot be bothered right now because it would involve a lot of typing and today it's warm and sunny outside, a rare occurrence in the middle of Winter.

San Martin:
I repeat to you what I said to Retrograde. Thanks to this thread I have realised that there exists a possibility that my personal experience has misled me. I mean, if I can be completely convinced that your reaction to feminism has been formed by only listening to the most extreme and non-representative sectors, then it's not inconceivable that the same has happened with my attitudes towards MRAs. I don't think it's very likely, and the evidence still isn't sufficiently strong for me to turn around and start defending MRAs as a whole, but I can at least recognise that not every last one of them is sexist.

And that's a good first step. A step that I took with feminism after frequenting this web site for some time.
I would advise looking into the issues they address and what they stand for, rather than how specific members behave. I imagine you'll be a lot more sympathetic than you would have thought.

San Martin:
I came to my conclusions about feminism and men's rights activism after a lot of thought and consideration, and the fact that they differ from yours does not mean that I'm simply obeying a gut reaction of mine. Therefore I think you were unfair in insulting me as closed-minded, because the fact is that I am willing to listen to and learn from other people's arguments.

Well first and foremost if I called you closed-minded it was not intended as an insult, only an accusation.
And if I did so then I was clearly wrong. You've said something along the lines of "I wasn't 100% correct" and that's more than most people are prepared to do with such hot topics. So fair play to you.

First off: Thanks for being polite.

Smeatza:

It's debatable whether women in the developed western world have "further to climb up the ladder." I would personally say both genders are on the same rung, with a ways to go.

The official party line of the Conservatives/Republicans is "we care about the poor."
The official party line for feminists is "we want equality for men and women."
But that doesn't make it true.
The feminist movement simply doesn't address ways in which men are less equal.
And it definitely doesn't address those issues with the same urgency or fervor.
A more accurate party line for the feminist movement would be "We almost exclusively concentrate on issues affecting females but if you're lucky addressing one of these issues might benefit men collaterally."

The thing is that many of the issues men & women face are inherently related. Essentially, curing the one will cure the other. Case in point:

When was the last time the feminist movement addressed the issues highlighted by the OP? Or male expendability? Or the fact that men have less rights when it comes to children?

I actually see those two issues (not looked too hard at the OP) brought up fairly often by feminists, as they are only one side of a coin that also discriminates against males. Males are considered expendable because women's ability to have children means they are viewed as more valuable, which is typically an attitude challenged by feminists. The same goes for the continuing attitude that women are "supposed" to raise kids, which is responsible for males getting fewer rights when it comes to children. That's the thing, the oft-cited quote - the patriarchy hurts both sexes (as well as making it very difficult for minorities like homosexuals and transsexuals... but that's another topic).

Well you're wrong to do so. And your kind of bigotry is one of the factors that makes me have to work so hard to give feminists and their movement the benefit of the doubt.

You're being a bit melodramatic here - you remind me of Omicron1, who believes that "conservaphobia" is a thing and that conservatives have been victims of bigotry in the US for the last 10 years. I disagree with a movement and think many of the people who subscribe to it are assholes - calling this "bigotry" seems to be doing something of a disservice to those who experience serious discrimination.

I do have a question for you though, even if the MRA movement is marred with hatred (which I don't believe it is), does that discredit everything it stands for?
More importantly, how does that make it any different than feminism?
Take at look at the feminist movement in the 70's. There was a genuine contempt for men emanating from the movement at that point in it's history. Many people were intimidated by this and tried to shut it down.
If more people had your attitude back then, then the feminist movement wouldn't have survived past the 70's.

My belief is that, while the hatred is unfortunate on its own merits, "what it stands for" wouldn't get any more valid if those promoting it were any more polite. I'd be more willing to forgive the assholes I see everywhere in the movement if I viewed it as a necessary movement at all.

OhJohnNo:

The thing is that many of the issues men & women face are inherently related. Essentially, curing the one will cure the other.

Even if that is the case (which I don't believe it is), why should anybody settle for a movement that treats them as a secondary priority?

OhJohnNo:
I actually see those two issues (not looked too hard at the OP) brought up fairly often by feminists, as they are only one side of a coin that also discriminates against males. Males are considered expendable because women's ability to have children means they are viewed as more valuable, which is typically an attitude challenged by feminists. The same goes for the continuing attitude that women are "supposed" to raise kids, which is responsible for males getting fewer rights when it comes to children. That's the thing, the oft-cited quote - the patriarchy hurts both sexes (as well as making it very difficult for minorities like homosexuals and transsexuals... but that's another topic).

This is exactly that I'm saying, the feminist way of addressing male expendability is to address the fact that females are valued for having children. The feminist way of addressing the male rights to children (which doesn't just cover child custody) is to address how women are expected to have and raise kids.
The male is always a secondary, and half-arsed priority. Like I said before the emphasis is clearly, and almost exclusively on the female side of things, and any benefits to males would be purely collateral, if they happened at all.

OhJohnNo:
You're being a bit melodramatic here - you remind me of Omicron1, who believes that "conservaphobia" is a thing and that conservatives have been victims of bigotry in the US for the last 10 years. I disagree with a movement and think many of the people who subscribe to it are assholes - calling this "bigotry" seems to be doing something of a disservice to those who experience serious discrimination.

You condemn and entire group of people, call them assholes for having certain political, moral or ethical beliefs.
And not even outlandish or extreme beliefs. All they believe is that feminism does not look out for the rights of men sufficiently or whole-heartedly. And yet you feel entitled to condemn said people and make large sweeping generalisations about their character, and negative ones at that.
Wikipedia says bigotry is "Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, or intolerance."
And your views on the MRA movement fit that bill perfectly.
And anybody can be the victim of discrimination, even conservatives. I'm sure when it comes to comedy shows conservatives must be heavily underrepresented.

OhJohnNo:
My belief is that, while the hatred is unfortunate on its own merits, "what it stands for" wouldn't get any more valid if those promoting it were any more polite. I'd be more willing to forgive the assholes I see everywhere in the movement if I viewed it as a necessary movement at all.

Feminism does not have a monopoly on human and civil rights movements.
And even if feminism did adequately address the needs of men (which I don't think it does), there's still no reason why others shouldn't set up similar but separate movements. Unless you think "It's either with us or against us."

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked