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

[Viredae]

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


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.

No it isn't, there are plenty of pieces and podcasts doing just that, here are a few discussing his views and denouncing them:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentrism/elliot-rodger-and-the-big-blue-pill/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=elliot-rodger-and-the-big-blue-pill

http://www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentrism/you-want-to-blame-the-mhrm-for-elliot-rodger-blame-gynocentrism-instead-yesallwomen/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=you-want-to-blame-the-mhrm-for-elliot-rodger-blame-gynocentrism-instead-yesallwomen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1_yq1YB0tg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCR1lfSSo3k

The basic argument is that Elliot Rodgers valued women's approval more than anything else, which is the source of his misanthropy, MRM rhetoric decries that sort of unhealthy attachment, and advocates focusing on self approval first and foremost.

Have you ever heard of MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way)? Their main talking point is that seeking female approval as your sole goal in life is a pitfall of modern society, whether you agree with them or not, that is the complete opposite of what Elliot Rodgers believed.

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.

First off, I fail to see why the date invalidates this, is there an expiration date on valid examples of psychopathy within feminism if the beliefs are still ingrained in the ideology?

Second, you asked for a radical feminist who murdered someone for the sake of feminism.

Third, this is really a moot point considering Rodgers wasn't an MRA.

Fourth, you're forgetting that Rodgers was mentally unstable, for your point on this point to be valid, you'd need to prove that his mental illness had nothing to do with his rampage, and had more to do with his ties to the MRM.

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.[/quote]

Read again, I said anyone who doesn't read AVFM is a FRINGE in the MRA, I didn't say they are not part of the MRM.

Valerie Solanas was a feminist, she identified as a feminist, she may have been a radical, but not a feminist.

Elliot Rodgers, frequented no MRM websites, he neither followed nor conversed with anyone from the MRM, he did not identify with as an MRA, the distinction is clear.

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.[/quote]

Except it doesn't undermine anti-rape campaigns, much like the boy who cried wolf, false rape accusations not only destroy lives, they also devalue the actual legitimate rape claims by injecting an air of doubt into legitimate claims.

Telling people not to make false claims does not equate to telling people not to report legitimate ones, how you draw the relation is beyond me.

The problem with your point is that you take anyone decrying false rape accusations instantly as someone who is out to de-legitimize anti-rape campaigns.

There is no substantial backlash to that because the two talking points are mutually exclusive, the only parallel between the two issues is that they both involve rape, they both destroy lives, and that they both looked similar.

 

[Viredae]

-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).

[Citation needed]

If you wish to claim that these places advocate any of these things, you better link them.

 

[Shodanbot]

[Citation needed]

If you wish to claim that these places advocate any of these things, you better link them.

I don't know of any citations for MRA websites. I don't frequent them.

I would like to cite one feminist blog that engages in stalking, harassment and a rape allegation without due process. Granted, they're not officially encouraged to behave in this manner but it hasn't discouraged them. It does highlight their hypocrisy. The only threat of violence as far as I can tell, was between two bloggers of the site.

Trivial western feminists, ahoy:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/

 

[Viredae]

[Citation needed]

If you wish to claim that these places advocate any of these things, you better link them.

I don't know of any citations for MRA websites. I don't frequent them.

I would like to cite one feminist blog that engages in stalking, harassment and a rape allegation without due process. Granted, they're not officially encouraged to behave in this manner but it hasn't discouraged them. It does highlight their hypocrisy. The only threat of violence as far as I can tell, was between two bloggers of the site.

Trivial western feminists, ahoy:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/

And that's really the problem, a lot of people don't bother getting the truth from the horse's mouth, most people are content to just believe the first person they hear it from.

 

[chikusho]

Jesus christ. How come every time someone calls out the bullshit of MRA's everyone responds by talking about feminists?
It's not a war with two sides people. The fact that some other people also suck doesn't make the MRA people suck any less.

 

[Karadalis]

Jesus christ. How come every time someone calls out the bullshit of MRA's everyone responds by talking about feminists?

How come everyone is talking about MRAs when that looney wasnt even asociating with MRAs?

How come all MRAs are generalized as anti female rights when in truth the issue isnt all black and white?

How come even thought the dude killed more males then females everyone is just talking about how much he hated women despite the fact he also hated every male of different skin color, every male who wasnt as rich as him... every male who had a girlfriend?

I tell you why:

Because some over quickthinking feminist blogger shot from the hip and claimed that the dude asociated with MRA groups despite no evidence present and that people like moviebob pick this up and present it as fact or atleast do nothing to correct these false accusations.

THAT is why we are talking about feminism here.

The dude killed 4 men and 2 women. Yet all thats in the medias attention is his hatred for women. Screw those 4 dead dudes.. we all know that dead males arent as important in public opinion then dead women.

THAT is why MRAs do have a point. It might be not a glaring one like what women have to deal with on a daily basis but it is still an issue. Men are simply worth less then women in the public opinion and till this changes that neither is more important then the other i say MRAs arent completly wrong (atleast those that do want to improve male rights and are not women hating cavemen)

 

[Machine Man 1992]

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.

Okay so they aren't officially "backed" by the government, but they do have politician's ears because the women's vote is an incredible valuable one.

And I never said I was an MRA; I approve of the movement, I want to be more involved, but I'm hesitant to commit myself a hundred percent because there's always a chance I'll turn on the movement like I did feminism and just abandon it and wallow in social nihilism. As the fucks I've run out of; it's obvious that I could type out reasons why the MRM is needed or why they have a right to speak and exist, and it wouldn't matter one bit. You've already made up your mind, and nothing is going to change it, so I'm going to save us all the trouble. I will however leave you with this:

"Feminism is a single group is completely out of touch with reality." A) you could say the same thing about the MRM, except they actually have the balls to monitor their own people and call out extremists. B) This reeks of the No True Scotsman/NAFALT defense.

 

[chikusho]

How come everyone is talking about MRAs when that looney wasnt even asociating with MRAs?

How come you're talking about some "looney" in your response to my general comment?

How come even thought the dude killed more males then females everyone is just talking about how much he hated women despite the fact he also hated every male of different skin color, every male who wasnt as rich as him... every male who had a girlfriend?

How come you're talking about some dude who killed people as a response to my general comment?

The dude killed 4 men and 2 women. Yet all thats in the medias attention is his hatred for women. Screw those 4 dead dudes.. we all know that dead males arent as important in public opinion then dead women.

Maybe.. just maybe.. it has something to do with the lengthy video he made before killing people, where he explicitly states that his hatred towards everyone is due to him not being able to possess women.

THAT is why MRAs do have a point. It might be not a glaring one like what women have to deal with on a daily basis but it is still an issue. Men are simply worth less then women in the public opinion and till this changes that neither is more important then the other i say MRAs arent completly wrong (atleast those that do want to improve male rights and are not women hating cavemen)

So, what you're saying is that, instead of creating an equal society where people are judged by their skills, their actions and are expected to be in control of their own lives and fates, we should make sure we take more men less seriously so that ultimately more people are looked down on and pandered to?

Doesn't sound like such a good idea to me.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

[Citation needed]

If you wish to claim that these places advocate any of these things, you better link them.

I don't know of any citations for MRA websites. I don't frequent them.

I would like to cite one feminist blog that engages in stalking, harassment and a rape allegation without due process. Granted, they're not officially encouraged to behave in this manner but it hasn't discouraged them. It does highlight their hypocrisy. The only threat of violence as far as I can tell, was between two bloggers of the site.

Trivial western feminists, ahoy:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/

And that's really the problem, a lot of people don't bother getting the truth from the horse's mouth, most people are content to just believe the first person they hear it from.

Luckily, I've got a horse right here: http://www.avoiceformen.com/

All of those in the thread who want to know about the MHRM, read all of this. A Voice For Men is THE Men's rights activism site on the internet.

 

[Shodanbot]

So how about mr. Bob steps down from his social justice warrior soapbox and dig for the facts before he goes off spouting his nonsense.

Because it's very easy to confidently hold the moral high ground. The view most not be bad either.

But no... suddenly thanks to white knights like Mr. Bob here its all about him hating women.

Can't help it, it's too good to pass by: As a gay man, who falls under one of the various minorities feminism claims to represent, if I white knight for MRA's does that mean I'm improving my odds?

 

[Viredae]

nevermind this post.

I kind of misread a post and replied to it, so this is unnecessary.

 

[Gorrath]

Jesus christ. How come every time someone calls out the bullshit of MRA's everyone responds by talking about feminists?
It's not a war with two sides people. The fact that some other people also suck doesn't make the MRA people suck any less.

There's a lot to be said about comparisons one could draw between the two movements and how they are received. You could flip-flop MRA and feminist in your statement and many would likely not bat an eye. Feminism and MRA are entwined because both claim, at their core, to be about the same thing. However, many, maybe even MOST in both camps don't see eye-to-eye because many of the ideologies held by people in the camps are not compatible with their supposed core ideology; that core ideology being one of societal equality of the sexes.

We have two groups who should, by all logic, be wonderfully helpful to one another. And yet what we find is an amazing amount of antagonism. I could write an essay on this but I don't want to bore anyone with a wall of text, especially when your question is poignant. Feminism gets brought up when people point out that MRAs "suck" because "feminists" often suck in the same way, for the same reasons all while both groups supposedly have the same stated goal.

 

[Gorrath]

Can't help it, it's too good to pass by: As a gay man, who falls under one of the various minorities feminism claims to represent, if I white knight for MRA's does that mean I'm improving my odds?

You can white knight for me, just so long as you don't get bitter when I reject your advances afterward. I'm friendzoning you preemptively!

(This is a joke. It is only a joke. NO MRAs, feminists, homosexuals or heterosexuals were harmed in the making of this joke.)

 

[chikusho]

Jesus christ. How come every time someone calls out the bullshit of MRA's everyone responds by talking about feminists?
It's not a war with two sides people. The fact that some other people also suck doesn't make the MRA people suck any less.

There's a lot to be said about comparisons one could draw between the two movements and how they are received. You could flip-flop MRA and feminist in your statement and many would likely not bat an eye. Feminism and MRA are entwined because both claim, at their core, to be about the same thing. However, many, maybe even MOST in both camps don't see eye-to-eye because many of the ideologies held by people in the camps are not compatible with their supposed core ideology; that core ideology being one of societal equality of the sexes.

We have two groups who should, by all logic, be wonderfully helpful to one another. And yet what we find is an amazing amount of antagonism. I could write an essay on this but I don't want to bore anyone with a wall of text, especially when your question is poignant. Feminism gets brought up when people point out that MRAs "suck" because "feminists" often suck in the same way, for the same reasons all while both groups supposedly have the same stated goal.

It doesn't make it any less irrelevant, though.
Like you can't say Stalin was a bad guy without someone saying "well, yeah, but Hitler was also a bad guy, so it's all the same".

 

[V4Viewtiful]

Jesus christ. How come every time someone calls out the bullshit of MRA's everyone responds by talking about feminists?
It's not a war with two sides people. The fact that some other people also suck doesn't make the MRA people suck any less.

Feminism gets brought up when people point out that MRAs "suck" because "feminists" often suck in the same way, for the same reasons all while both groups supposedly have the same stated goal.

I think that's due to what often happens with organisations with ideals, they end up becoming self-serving.

Hey, remember when Obama said men need to take care of their kids a single moms are the backbone of society? I think that adds fuel to that seperation.

 

[Gorrath]

Jesus christ. How come every time someone calls out the bullshit of MRA's everyone responds by talking about feminists?
It's not a war with two sides people. The fact that some other people also suck doesn't make the MRA people suck any less.

There's a lot to be said about comparisons one could draw between the two movements and how they are received. You could flip-flop MRA and feminist in your statement and many would likely not bat an eye. Feminism and MRA are entwined because both claim, at their core, to be about the same thing. However, many, maybe even MOST in both camps don't see eye-to-eye because many of the ideologies held by people in the camps are not compatible with their supposed core ideology; that core ideology being one of societal equality of the sexes.

We have two groups who should, by all logic, be wonderfully helpful to one another. And yet what we find is an amazing amount of antagonism. I could write an essay on this but I don't want to bore anyone with a wall of text, especially when your question is poignant. Feminism gets brought up when people point out that MRAs "suck" because "feminists" often suck in the same way, for the same reasons all while both groups supposedly have the same stated goal.

It doesn't make it any less irrelevant, though.
Like you can't say Stalin was a bad guy without someone saying "well, yeah, but Hitler was also a bad guy, so it's all the same".

If you're discussion is about the atrocities committed during the period leading up to WW2 and during the war, it most certainly is relevant. Feminism and MRAs are often attacked by their detractors with the same accusations, all while both "sides" claim that those same attacks are misguided or logically flawed. I don't think it's unfair to say that MRA is taken far less seriously as a movement than feminism, despite having the same stated goals, the same logical fallacies targeted at it, the same "zero sum" games being played. People get defensive about accusations leveled at MRAs because many of those same accusations are applicable to feminism, and yet largely MRA is considered a joke while feminism is considered an important step forward in progressivism. It is no wonder that people who are sympathetic to MRA ideology bring up feminism given this disparity.

To be a bit more concise, here's an example. If a "crazy" person who claims to be a feminist, spouts a bunch of crazy stuff, feminists might engage in the "no true scotsman" fallacy as a way of distancing themselves from that crazy. In some cases, this distancing isn't even a fallacy, as there are plenty of "feminists" who's ideology is incompatible with the stated goals of feminism (equality of the sexes.)

This exact same thing happens in MRA circles because both sides suffer the exact same problem. The issue is that the bat-shit-crazy people who claim feminism as their mantra are not considered to be the "real" or "core" feminists, this is why feminism is taken seriously by a large portion of society and has effected the socio-political landscape in the way it has. On the other hand, the same feminists who'll toss out the crazy feminist and disown them, claiming that they don't really represent feminism because their ideas are not compatible with feminism's core principle, will often turn around and claim that MRA really IS its crazies, even the ones who's ideas do not line up with the core principle of MRA (incidentally, the exact same core principle of feminism.)

So, what we end up with is MRAs wondering why feminists get to ditch their crazy members and disown their ideologies, while MRA is not afforded the same understanding or respect. Once this question is asked though, a well-meaning person like yourself comes along and asks why MRAs are comparing themselves to feminism and saying that it does not have any bearing on what MRAs do and say. I hope I've illustrated why this is done and why it is a relevant comparison.

 

[Gorrath]

Jesus christ. How come every time someone calls out the bullshit of MRA's everyone responds by talking about feminists?
It's not a war with two sides people. The fact that some other people also suck doesn't make the MRA people suck any less.

Feminism gets brought up when people point out that MRAs "suck" because "feminists" often suck in the same way, for the same reasons all while both groups supposedly have the same stated goal.

I think that's due to what often happens with organisations with ideals, they end up becoming self-serving.

Hey, remember when Obama said men need to take care of their kids a single moms are the backbone of society? I think that adds fuel to that seperation.

I believe you are correct in saying that the groups become self-serving. Probably the single biggest reason for the formation of MRA was because men felt left out of the "equality" part of the feminist talking points/activism. Hell, even in this thread I've seen feminism described as the fight for "women's rights." Feminism cannot simply be a fight for "women's rights" if its core goal is equality, feminism HAS to be about equal rights to achieve that goal, and downplaying inequality toward men will not achieve that end. MRA is in the exact same self-serving boat though, and this is why both groups have unlimited ammunition to fire at one another. It is also why I variously describe myself as both a feminist and MRA and also neither. I prefer egalitarian, but many reject its use. Suffice it to say that I stand for the equality of treatment of the sexes in society while trying to avoid the self-serving trap.

 

[chikusho]

snip

Sorry, but I still thinks it's entirely irrelevant.
All of the arguments I ever see on the MRA side is "Not ALL MRA's, some do good work and have valid points" followed by no examples of good MRA's or valid points (at least not ones that aren't still inherent to the inequality between sexes that stem from the lesser perception of women), and also "Feminism has crazy people too so what gives?". Like that somehow makes this OK, or even just go away.

If a movement and its defenders can't keep on point without flinging poo at something else in a single discussion, no wonder they can never be taken seriously by the general population. Everyone comparing MRM to Feminism when they have their bullshit called out makes the entire concept sound childish and flawed. If the only argument that an MRA defender has is "we aren't taken seriously compared to feminists who also have crazies" they have no ground to stand on, and their issue is inane.

Talk about what's correct, incorrect and inform of the positives, and you'll have people listening. If the biggest issue you're championing is that no one is listening to your issues, you're going about it the wrong way. That's just preaching to a choir of self-victimized children.

 

[Shodanbot]

Jesus christ. How come every time someone calls out the bullshit of MRA's everyone responds by talking about feminists?
It's not a war with two sides people. The fact that some other people also suck doesn't make the MRA people suck any less.

There's a lot to be said about comparisons one could draw between the two movements and how they are received. You could flip-flop MRA and feminist in your statement and many would likely not bat an eye. Feminism and MRA are entwined because both claim, at their core, to be about the same thing. However, many, maybe even MOST in both camps don't see eye-to-eye because many of the ideologies held by people in the camps are not compatible with their supposed core ideology; that core ideology being one of societal equality of the sexes.

We have two groups who should, by all logic, be wonderfully helpful to one another. And yet what we find is an amazing amount of antagonism. I could write an essay on this but I don't want to bore anyone with a wall of text, especially when your question is poignant. Feminism gets brought up when people point out that MRAs "suck" because "feminists" often suck in the same way, for the same reasons all while both groups supposedly have the same stated goal.

I think some of it stems from victim boasting and group think. The idea that one party's victim-hood is more important than the other. It's from my own observations of the MRA vs Feminist rhetoric. I could be way off and grossly simplifying the issue. I'd be interested in that essay of yours.

I do look at the genuine issues raised from both parties though. The MRA appears to have come about because US fathers felt poorly served in custody and divorce courts. The feminists for inequality with men. I suppose one problem that I have with ideologies or causes is when is equal, equal. Enough, enough. It rubs me the wrong way when a lot of the sillier white collar goals are taken seriously by people who should know better (Low numbers of woman in powerful jobs, their supposed poor representation in pop fiction, etc.) and the same for their goofier conspiracy theory-like concepts like patriarchy and rape culture.

They all look so trivial to someone who is genuinely attempting to help people, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

You can white knight for me, just so long as you don't get bitter when I reject your advances afterward. I'm friendzoning you preemptively!

(This is a joke. It is only a joke. NO MRAs, feminists, homosexuals or heterosexuals were harmed in the making of this joke.)

No more bitter than Bob sir! ;-P

Also, I've no idea what friendzoning is! Heh