Married with Children as a Parody of Men's Rights Activists

[Machine Man 1992]

In conclusion women suck and don't do enough of it
.

...-_-....really?

can be drafted to go fight and die in some god forsaken country,

this hasn't fucking happned since what...Nam?

aside from that I could also rattle off a list of bad things that happen to women..but you know what? that would be pointless...because comparing "bad things that happen" to any one group is pointless

I'm glad someone finally said it.

And just because the draft is out of favor (but technically still in use) in America, doesn't mean it is in other parts of the world and oh my god I'm turning into SJW.

 

[Shodanbot]

It does not fall upon the victim to prove that it is credible, especially when you know that its nearly impossible.

In a court, it is and for good reason. Why is Anita's supposed (and profitable) victim-hood any different? It's interesting that you mention that it's "nearly impossible" to prove directly afterward.

The whole point of a threat is that they're intended to be taken seriously, even if the person making the threat has no intention to follow up on it. Thats the whole point of a threat - to terrorize them, even if you don't intend physical harm.

And the whole point of a troll is to get a rise out of the "victim". For example, Richard Dawkins probably receives a fair share of his "threats" on a daily basis. Here's his response: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZuowNcuGsc

Notice the humorous and dismissive manner in which he deals with anonymous "threats" on the internet. That's the correct way to deal with trolls and reactionaries. He isn't using it as a pity card to further his position. Anita should be no different.

There were attempts to acquire and distribute her personal information, though, which wouldn't be used kindly.

I'm sure there was.

Additionally, one of Anita's supporters actually received threats, and was continually harassed. She followed up by filing charges, and the person, last I knew it, was facing charges for criminal harassment.

One of Anita's supporters is not Anita, but I'll hold my opinion on guilty or not until after a jury has come to a decision.

Already aware of her. She deserves the praise aimed at her, but unfortunately, since it doesn't do much to affect the western world, most people are unaware of her. In that regard, she's not much different, from, say, Norman Borlaug, aka "The Man Who Saved One Billion Lives".

Hirsi Ali does indeed deserve the praise given to her. She's also received credible threats to her life beyond some wanker on a forum somewhere wishing he could do this and that to her (which may not be sincere).

She's irrelevant within the context of gaming as a medium, though, so if your intent is to say "Hey, look at an activist doing real work",

My intent was exactly that, she is an activist doing real work. Anita, on the other hand, is "educating" videogame, TV and film writers on how to avoid hurting the feelings of first world middleclass girls\women. Fairly trivial stuff in comparison.

you're doing nothing but belittling gaming as an artform.

Yep, sure I am.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Difference is. Mr. Rodgers has been pretty much universally condemned by the MRM. On the other end of the specturm whenever a batshit insane feminist does something awful she's ethier given a free pass or actively cheered on by the rest of the bloody movement.

The MRM disowned a mass killer. How gutsy of them! Did they distance themselves from his views before the killings, though? I'm guessing it happened after. This is all one big "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Especially as they are distancing themselves from the person, not his views.

Maybe you can tell me when a radical feminist committed murders, and used feminism in her justification for doing so? Wait, that didn't happen?

The idea of "batshit insane feminists" being given a "free pass" is just completely deluded nonsense. Can you please point out a case where this happened?

 

[Aardvaarkman]

I would spend the rest of this post ranting about how feminism has morphed from a Women's Lib movement into a government backed hate group, but my supply of fucks to give has run out today.

Is that opinion part of the supposedly rational and "mainstream" MRA position that you claim?

Because "government backed hate group" is a pretty ridiculous argument, almost at the level of "The CIA planted a bug in my fillings." Even the idea that "feminism" is a single group is completely out of touch with reality, let alone the "government backing" part.

 

[WiseBass]

Even calling them "MRAs" is giving these particular groups too much respect, like euphemistically describing the KKK as a "white people rights and personal advancement society". They're misogynistic hate groups who do little to nothing for men who are actually in need, but spend their days whining incessantly about the evil feminists taking away their privileges and rights to beat their wives, while harassing prominent female authors and feminists on Twitter and elsewhere. The sheer river of crap that Anita Sarkeesian had to deal with from these scumbags is proof of that.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

We must always remember that the most vocal members of any movement are generally representative of the fringe, not the whole.

I'd like to see evidence of this with regards to the MRA movement. It seems to be almost an entirely reactionary movement against feminism. As such, I doubt that there is very much but "fringe" there.

How many of the supposedly non-fringe MRAs oppose putting up those posters about women making false rape allegations? Because that was done by an organized Men's Rights group. Or is that considered an acceptable part of the mainstream MRA philosophy?

What is it that non-fringe MRAs believe, and why do they need to join reactionary groups to lobby for it?

 

[Robert Marrs]

Still kills me how MRA's are widely considered a joke while feminism is taken seriously. Both make some solid points but both are ultimately soiled by all or nothing extremists. To stand up for one side but denigrate the other while claiming to stand for equality is quite the knee slapper. The hypocrisy in this thread is staggering when it comes to the back in forth bickering from people who are both guilty of the same exact thing. The only real difference is that feminism is taken seriously regardless of how extreme, while men's rights are a complete joke no matter how valid the standpoint. Honestly I would rather just continue living my life how I always have lived it. With other people, as equals, who don't really care about gender or race. Normal people who just kind of live life and associate with those they enjoy instead of complaining about people who don't think like they do.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

recommended "intelligent" critics of Anita Sarkeesian, which upon viewing/reading turned out to be just as stupid as the others, just without the rape and death threats.

I have seen enough boards full of insane, embittered misogyny to know that "the crazies" aren't exactly a small minority in this movement.

Can you cite just one credible threat to Anita? If you claim it, you must name it. Or Anita should.

Are you kidding? There are plenty of such examples of threats and harassment that have been documented.

Oh, I suppose you mean "credible threats" to dismiss any such threats as being insignificant? Notice how I never said "credible threat," and you just added that condition in yourself? Tell me - how do you know whether a threat is "credible" or not? The majority of the threats may never be acted on, but how do you know that any particular one of them wouldn't be?

The very making of the threats is a problem in itself, even if they were never intended to be carried out. Do you really think it's acceptable or appropriate for anybody to go around making such threats, even if it's idle? Do you really think it's not harassment to make a video game about beating her up?

Do you think that such threats, "credible" or not are not examples of misogyny?

 

[Shodanbot]

Are you kidding? There are plenty of such examples of threats and harassment that have been documented.

Oh, I suppose you mean "credible threats" to dismiss any such threats as being insignificant? Notice how I never said "credible threat," and you just added that condition in yourself? Tell me - how do you know whether a threat is "credible" or not? The majority of the threats may never be acted on, but how do you know that any particular one of them wouldn't be?

The very making of the threats is a problem in itself, even if they were never intended to be carried out. Do you really think it's acceptable or appropriate for anybody to go around making such threats, even if it's idle? Do you really think it's not harassment to make a video game about beating her up?

Do you think that such threats, "credible" or not are not examples of misogyny?

Jesus, a lot of questions for me. Lovely. My answers:

No, I'm not kidding. I'm serious.
Yep
Yep, I noticed it. I was deliberately specific, you on the other hand are trivial.
Doe she?
Nope, but I sometimes wish a few folks dead when I get all worked up. Not appropriate, but it's human.
Nope, just as I don't think I'm a cop killer when I play GTA.
Have you ever considered that the peeps making the "threats" might just hate the individual and not her entire gender?

I suppose I'll repeat myself to:

Richard Dawkins probably receives a fair share of his "threats" on a daily basis. Here's his response: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZuowNcuGsc

Notice the humorous and dismissive manner in which he deals with anonymous "threats" on the internet. That's the correct way to deal with trolls and reactionaries. He isn't using it as a pity card to further his position. Anita should be no different.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Richard Dawkins probably receives a fair share of his "threats" on a daily basis. Here's his response: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZuowNcuGsc

Notice the humorous and dismissive manner in which he deals with anonymous "threats" on the internet. That's the correct way to deal with trolls and reactionaries. He isn't using it as a pity card to further his position. Anita should be no different.

So, just because people don't respond to threats with the lighthearted manner of Richard Dawkins means they are wrong to be upset by them? Spoken like somebody who's never actually been threatened or harassed.

Glad that you think that harassment is such a trivial thing to be laughed off. Yeah, it's just like playing GTA. Whatever. You may think you're being serious, but you can't be taken seriously.

I'm not sure what your point is. I say that the kind of thing I see pointed to by MRAs as "intelligent" critiques of feminism are basically the same dumb commentary, but without the threats, and your response is to defend people making threats? What the hell? Why is it that you immediately jump to the defense of harassment and threats based on an off-hand comment where the threats and harassment weren't even the main point?

 

[Shodanbot]

So, just because people don't respond to threats with the lighthearted manner of Richard Dawkins means they are wrong to be upset by them?

There's that word again. Anyway, just look what she's achieved riding the wave of her "threats". It also gives her a good reason not to respond to critics of the content of her videos. It must be nice to dismiss your critics instead of facing them.

Spoken like somebody who's never actually been threatened or harassed.

I do hate to bring up my personal history, but it's the only insight you'll get: As a child, I was. The difference is, I'm not an ideologue. Your no true scotsman is very weak.

Glad that you think that harassment is such a trivial thing to be laughed off.

Nice strawman. I'm glad you're glad.

Yeah, it's just like playing GTA.

Oh dear, another strawman. tsk tsk. 1200 posts and you still haven't figured it out? Never too late to learn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

It's a good place to get started.

Whatever. You may think you're serious, but you can't be taken seriously.

Oh woe is me! Is there anyone out of the 7 billion people on Earth that can take me seriously? I think I ought to rethink me life...

I'm not sure what your point is. I say that the kind of thing I see pointed to by MRAs as "intelligent" critiques of feminism are basically the same dumb commentary, but without the threats, and your response is to defend people making threats?

I didn't state which side of the MRA/Feminist camp I fall into, may as well make it known: I fall into neither. I don't like the MRA's for the same reason I don't like the Feminists. They divide complex problems into a false dichotomy. Feminism does annoy me more than the MRA because of it's ubiquity, legitimacy and continuing complaints of first world middleclass problems.

What the hell? Why is it that you immediately jump to the defense of harassment and threats based on an off-hand comment where the threats and harassment weren't even the main point?

Another strawman.

 

[thehorror2]

Why is it all the MRAs and Feminists I know in meatspace are reasonable people, but the ones I meet through the internet are all psychopaths?

 

[Aardvaarkman]

So, just because people don't respond to threats with the lighthearted manner of Richard Dawkins means they are wrong to be upset by them?

There's that word again. Anyway, just look what she's achieved riding the wave of her "threats". It also gives her a good reason not to respond to critics of the content of her videos. It must be nice to dismiss your critics instead of facing them.

What does her success or lack thereof have to do with anything?

Spoken like somebody who's never actually been threatened or harassed.

I do hate to bring up my personal history, but it's the only insight you'll get: As a child, I was. The difference is, I'm not an ideologue. Your no true scotsman is very weak.

Uh, that's not a "No True Scotsman" - nothing like it. You should learn about how that fallacy works.

Glad that you think that harassment is such a trivial thing to be laughed off.

Nice strawman. I'm glad you're glad.

That's not a strawman. You were the one who wrote in your post that the correct way to respond to a threat is to laugh it off. You should learn about how that fallacy works.

Yeah, it's just like playing GTA.

Oh dear, another strawman. tsk tsk. 1200 posts and you still haven't figured it out? Never too late to learn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

See previous reply. You obviously either didn't read the Wikipedia article you linked to, or didn't understand it.

But again, it's kind of odd that you took a post that tangentially mentioned Sarkeesian as part of a larger example, and took that as an opportunity to both bash Sarkeesian, and trivialize harassment.

 

[Shodanbot]

SNIP

OK. You win, I lose.

Everybody's happy.

 

[Viredae]

The MRM disowned a mass killer. How gutsy of them! Did they distance themselves from his views before the killings, though? I'm guessing it happened after. This is all one big "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Especially as they are distancing themselves from the person, not his views.

See, the problem with throwing "no true scottsman" is that... There is a criteria for being a "true scottsman" here, likewise with the MRM, if the man never frequented MRM websites or popular speakers, never once indulged in any MRM rhetoric in his 140 something manifesto... So tell me how you arrived at him being a "scottsman" exactly?

The simple reason why the MRM didn't distance themselves from rodgers before the incident... Is because there was no contact with him to make distance away from.

Maybe you can tell me when a radical feminist committed murders, and used feminism in her justification for doing so? Wait, that didn't happen?

Someone already did, actually, her name was Valerie Solanas, she's a radical feminist who advocated killing men quite often, she even shot Andy Warhol (yes, that Andy Warhol)... And feminists heralded her as one of their big heroes.

We must always remember that the most vocal members of any movement are generally representative of the fringe, not the whole.

I'd like to see evidence of this with regards to the MRA movement. It seems to be almost an entirely reactionary movement against feminism. As such, I doubt that there is very much but "fringe" there.

Have you heard of A Voice For Men? That's literally the biggest MRM website out there, most likely if you don't frequent it, you're most likely in the fringe of the MRM, here's their "welcome" page:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/welcome-to-avfm/

Incidentally, AVFM's rank on Alexa is 30,000, which means it's pretty damn big.

How many of the supposedly non-fringe MRAs oppose putting up those posters about women making false rape allegations? Because that was done by an organized Men's Rights group. Or is that considered an acceptable part of the mainstream MRA philosophy?

I have no idea, there wasn't exactly a poll, however, the "false rape" issue is a pretty legitimate issue, considering that

A) there's anywhere between 10% to 50% (depending on which study you believe) claims that are false, and to put that into perspective, if there were 1.26 million rapes reported in the US (from NISVS 2010), that would put the number of false accusations at 126,000 claims(US department of Justice).

What is it that non-fringe MRAs believe, and why do they need to join reactionary groups to lobby for it?

Here's AVFM's mission statement:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/policies/mission-statement/

 

[Shodanbot]

Why is it all the MRAs and Feminists I know in meatspace are reasonable people, but the ones I meet through the internet are all psychopaths?

Ideology does that to you. The closer you get to it, the nuttier you become.

 

[Viredae]

Why is it all the MRAs and Feminists I know in meatspace are reasonable people, but the ones I meet through the internet are all psychopaths?

Ideology does that to you. The closer you get to it, the nuttier you become.

Don't forget the internet's Carte Blanche policy.

 

[Shodanbot]

Don't forget the internet's Carte Blanche policy.

Every day's a school day. That's good, I'll have to remember that.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

See, the problem with throwing "no true scottsman" is that... There is a criteria for being a "true scottsman" here, likewise with the MRM, if the man never frequented MRM websites or popular speakers, never once indulged in any MRM rhetoric in his 140 something manifesto... So tell me how you arrived at him being a "scottsman" exactly?

What are you talking about? His manifesto is filled with the kind of rhetoric that MRAs use.

The simple reason why the MRM didn't distance themselves from rodgers before the incident... Is because there was no contact with him to make distance away from.

I didn't say from him - I said from his views. I have yet to see the MRM disavow the kind of rhetoric he uses about women having all the power, and how all men want is some affection and acceptance, etc. Yet MRA rhetoric is filled with that kind of language.

They don't need to have had prior contact with him to decry that kind of talk.

Someone already did, actually, her name was Valerie Solanas, she's a radical feminist who advocated killing men quite often, she even shot Andy Warhol (yes, that Andy Warhol)... And feminists heralded her as one of their big heroes.

So, your example is from the 1960s. And she did not get the "free pass" that you claimed. She went to jail, and the media did not give her a free pass in any way.

As for your contention of feminists heralding her as a hero, that's also revisionist history. While some feminists may have approved of her actions, it was not a widely-held belief among feminists.

Have you heard of A Voice For Men? That's literally the biggest MRM website out there, most likely if you don't frequent it, you're most likely in the fringe of the MRM, here's their "welcome" page:

This is the epitome of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy - that if you don't belong to this particular club/brand of MRM, then you are not a "real" MRM.

By your own example here, Valerie Solanas was not a "real" feminist, because she rejected mainstream feminism.

How many of the supposedly non-fringe MRAs oppose putting up those posters about women making false rape allegations? Because that was done by an organized Men's Rights group. Or is that considered an acceptable part of the mainstream MRA philosophy?

I have no idea, there wasn't exactly a poll, however, the "false rape" issue is a pretty legitimate issue, considering that

I never said anything about false accusations of rape not being an issue. I asked whether there is any substantial opposition within the movement to putting up posters aimed at discouraging women from reporting rape, and undermining anti-rape campaigns, like Men's Rights Canada did.

I don't think there has to be a poll, this was a pretty big story - so I would have thought that if there was any substantial opposition to such tactics, there should be posts all over the MRA websites telling people that is not a cool thing to do. It should be in the FAQs or guidelines for such organizations.

 

[Loonyyy]

-SNIP-

You really do not serve yourself well by citing AVfM. The fact that sites like AVfM are representative of MRA thought, or considered worthy of referencing is exactly the problem, because AVfM is exactly the rape-apologia, the misogyny, the domestic-violence apologia, stalking, harrassment, threats of violence, and bigotry that people associate with the MRM.

And views presented there aren't all that different from things like Rodger's manifesto, which was Aardvark's point: Even if MRA's reject Rodger, they don't reject the beliefs, or ideas.

Additionally: Rodger was acting perfectly in line with AVfM's conduct, who believe in stalking, harrassment, and threats of violence, and up until the Boston Marathon, proudly displayed a manifesto including calls to firebomb government buildings and courthouses.

For MRA's to be taken seriously, they'd need to reject groups like AVfM. But they won't, because that's a pretty large portion of them. That's one of the reasons MRA, or Men's Rights has become such a red flag (Which is ironic considering a similar [Usually unsubstantiaed] association exists for feminism).