Mens Rights Activists

[shintakie10]

I'd refute your "staple of comedy" statement since it'd require a VAST MAJORITY of comedians to use it (could be a american-centric thing though, so I wouldn't reject that possibility). Have you talked to comedians though? I mean, serious chats, heck, even watch some of the serious interviews. I'm not sure about the younger ones, but quite a few of them surprise me with their level of insight. Sure, there are assholes there, but that's the same for every aspect of the entertainment industry. You should watch some of the stuff from the cast of monty python (even their newer stuff by the surviving members). By stifling even humour of something is how society create tensions and taboo.

Ok, it seems that we've not been seeing the same kind of prison rape humour.

In my experience, it's generally not raised in a discussion about prison rape, or prison in general, prison rape is brought up for the purpose of making an easy gag, and then immediately dropped. That's by far the most common way I've seen it depicted.

This is what bothers me most about prison rape jokes. They're so prevalent in American society that its been boiled down to a incredibly simple punchline.

The most common talk when someone goes to prison for child abuse is that "they'll get theirs in prison." The implied bit is that they'll get raped in prison because inmates don't like child molesters. Its unspoken, not because its taboo, but because its accepted. The line "Dont drop the soap" is constantly used as a joke even though it refers, very explicitly, to being anally raped if you have to bend down to pick up soap.

You have mainstream television shows making jokes about it and no one raises a stink. Hell, Friends made a prison rape joke (a very very tame one) and that's the epitome of safe white people humor.

I don't mind the fact that its used as a joke too much. I've laughed at racist/homophobic/sexist jokes all the time. Not laughing at a prison rape joke would make me a hypocrite. The problem I have is that far too few people in society honestly give a crap about the latter despite the fact that its a really big problem simply because they're able to compartmentalize it as a bad person getting what they deserve.

Its a lot like how pedophiles are treated in the world. Yeah they're icky and some of them actually have hurt people, but a lot of them havent. However they're treated worse than dirt after they've been released from prison simply because its easy to discriminate against someone that society doesn't like anyway.

And dont get it twisted either. Its a huge problem for both men and women in prison. Recent statistics have shown that its actually a bigger problem in women prisons than it is in mens prisons. Whether thats because there's a larger population of men or because there's more safeguards in place for the men I'm not sure.

I'm super off topic though.

Yes they exist. Theres a lot of crazies out there and there's a lot of people who just want to raise awareness for mens issues. There was that really good ad campaign a while back about how violence is violence. They had 2 actors pretend to be a couple and first had the man berate the women in public. People came to her defense, they stood up for her, they made the guy back off. Yay! Later they had those same 2 actors do the same bit, but with the gender roles reversed and the man was the one being berated and abused by the women. No one ever came to help, even when it got physical. A lot of people straight up laughed at the guy.

A lot of women I talked to on the net about it correctly pointed out that the problem was obviously a problem with patriarchy. The problem stemmed from what to do about it. The only answer ever given was to get rid of gender roles and it wouldn't be a problem. Okay, thats great but what do we do for the next hundred years while we try to recondition a millennium of "the way things are"? That's where it breaks down for me.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I think it might have to do with the means of exposure, I rarely watch TV,

Ah, ok, mainly thinking of TV comedy here.

It's a MRA thread, but we arrived at it not by MRA means

True.

Here's the thing, there's already an acknowledgement that this IS a problem (even by Justice departments). But it doesn't enter the public consciousness, how do we cut through all that?

We personally, or we as society or institutions?

One route is comedy which you seem to despise, the serious route is filled with political exploitation. That's the solution I was asking for. I mean, short of a mandatory Justice class as part of the curriculum (the last time that got brought up... it wasn't pretty).

Well, it's not so much in comedy that I despise, it's the way I generally see it come up in comedy, which generally revolves around someone being raped in prison being inherently funny in of itself. I suspect this is due to how society views people in prison.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

No questions on the legislative front, the only place where Ts are getting a fairshake was Germany I believe (with the 3 official boxes), maybe missed a few other countries. But even before all this (as in late 90s), way before the legislative push, there was already a lot of hostilities between the L+Gs and Ts, so I don't really know all the details. Ts weren't really a thing where I was and I already left by the time they joined (due to the precursors of SJWs). I do keep track of statistics and some arguments, but not enough to faithfully present an informed opinion in this regard of L+G vs T.

There's a lot of thing that doesn't make sense to me though, since there's the claim of feeling of vulnerability from M->F by Ts that's attributed to society even though it's literally a list side-effect of hormonal treatment. The demonization of people that wants to be biological parent (including L+Gs) as somehow discrimination against T (this is one of the thing I accidentally sat through recently and not sure how prevalent it is, I'm still lost whenever I think about). There's also the argument within T community themselves in regards to treatment vs surgery with one side that pushing heavy for reassignment while the others actively push against it, giving younger Ts pre-transition a lot of wtf headaches. On one hand, you've statistic and Ts saying that surgery doesn't help with coping with depression, suicide and dysphoria (sp?), on the other hand, you've Ts claiming that Ts aren't Ts if they don't reassign themselves. This just adds to the clusterfuck (clusterfuckception?).

The transgender community has been really dealing with fighting for any legal footing within LGBT community at large since the seventies, in the eighties as I recall we had an in in the AGENDA bill, and were tossed right under the bus. Transgender has been basically a chronically marginalized condition for over a century(and longer), we're just now getting our feet ourselves in the legals setting and the L&G factions have actually been working against that.

As for the vulnerability we feel... Well trans people are still murdered, beaten, and raped at levels far surpassing most other groups, thats why coming out is something most trans avoid on any large scale. Also L&G more actively demonize people who want to be biological parents, trans people might lash out due to jealousy though, using it as discrimination from a trans standpoint is rather the territory of the loonies. Also trans people are generally moving towards accept of transition with varied levels of treatment and gender reassignment surgeries. A lot of trans people fall into "no surgery" territory because of the militant trans people who think surgery is the end all be all. It's not so much a clusterfuck as a paradigm shift in the community, with some stubborn hangers on to the old ideas.

 

[Lightknight]

It started as a parody of feminism, got a lot of flak from feminists for fairly obvious reasons - being a poorly disguised, paper thin way of being sexist while defending yourself by claiming it as humour - but... eventually became a thing.

I just don't understand why this could possibly become a thing, but apparently some people think men don't have enough power in the world. Men suffer from oppression but feminism isn't responsible for that.

Oppression against men is misandry. Oppression against women is misogyny. Equality in gender rights is feminism. I don't see why there needs to be more and more labels.

The unfortunate part of that is that feminism isn't equality in gender rights, even the best feminists only support women's rights, there is nothing done to help lessen the gender biases against men by feminists. Feminists also completely ignore things like prostate cancer and battered men, I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but their goals are female focused. Also the loudest platforms in feminism are misandrists and TERFs, not saying it's the majority of feminists, but it is the loudest and most powerful section. Mens Rights types are much the same, except they focus on oppressive attitudes, laws, and treatments against men, and their loudest and most powerful section happens to be made up of homophobes, transphobes, gay separatists, and misogynists. So two different groups, similar target goals with different focus, and the same essential problem with extremists who make the movements look bad.

Well, since feminism is centered around women's rights I'm not all that concerned with their focus on that topic.

The issue comes more when proponents of the moment support inequality as long as the sufferers of the inequality are members who aren't in their perceived group. This is why MRAs exist.

Feminists and MRAs at their best are just pursuing equality. Anything else and it's going the wrong way.

Yeah that was the point I was getting at there. Too many people flat out vilify whole movements, because of a few raging morons who happen to have the loudest and most influential public platforms. Which is one of the reasons I dislike the entire LGBT community, because there are too many conflicting interests between all four subsets for us to really bond together. That's basically the same problem that egalitarian movement as a whole has, it's too broad with too many individually focused agendas to avoid conflict of interest and focus.

I think the main premise of the LGBT community is the common interest of acceptance and equality. That premise should generally justify the alliance of individuals commonly oppressed over somewhat related issues regarding sexual and gender identity. Everything else, all the more specific interests that might only apply to one subset shouldn't be seen as an interest of the overall group. But I agree that it often is seen as all for one and one for all and can therefore end up reflecting poorly on the overall community when the one ends up being for terrible things.

But hey, individuals making everyone look bad? Just another sign that members of the LGBT community are only human too .

 

[BrokenTinker]

No questions on the legislative front, the only place where Ts are getting a fairshake was Germany I believe (with the 3 official boxes), maybe missed a few other countries. But even before all this (as in late 90s), way before the legislative push, there was already a lot of hostilities between the L+Gs and Ts, so I don't really know all the details. Ts weren't really a thing where I was and I already left by the time they joined (due to the precursors of SJWs). I do keep track of statistics and some arguments, but not enough to faithfully present an informed opinion in this regard of L+G vs T.

There's a lot of thing that doesn't make sense to me though, since there's the claim of feeling of vulnerability from M->F by Ts that's attributed to society even though it's literally a list side-effect of hormonal treatment. The demonization of people that wants to be biological parent (including L+Gs) as somehow discrimination against T (this is one of the thing I accidentally sat through recently and not sure how prevalent it is, I'm still lost whenever I think about). There's also the argument within T community themselves in regards to treatment vs surgery with one side that pushing heavy for reassignment while the others actively push against it, giving younger Ts pre-transition a lot of wtf headaches. On one hand, you've statistic and Ts saying that surgery doesn't help with coping with depression, suicide and dysphoria (sp?), on the other hand, you've Ts claiming that Ts aren't Ts if they don't reassign themselves. This just adds to the clusterfuck (clusterfuckception?).

The transgender community has been really dealing with fighting for any legal footing within LGBT community at large since the seventies, in the eighties as I recall we had an in in the AGENDA bill, and were tossed right under the bus. Transgender has been basically a chronically marginalized condition for over a century(and longer), we're just now getting our feet ourselves in the legals setting and the L&G factions have actually been working against that.

As for the vulnerability we feel... Well trans people are still murdered, beaten, and raped at levels far surpassing most other groups, thats why coming out is something most trans avoid on any large scale. Also L&G more actively demonize people who want to be biological parents, trans people might lash out due to jealousy though, using it as discrimination from a trans standpoint is rather the territory of the loonies. Also trans people are generally moving towards accept of transition with varied levels of treatment and gender reassignment surgeries. A lot of trans people fall into "no surgery" territory because of the militant trans people who think surgery is the end all be all. It's not so much a clusterfuck as a paradigm shift in the community, with some stubborn hangers on to the old ideas.

Wish I knew half of this stuff when I was still working as a community outreach worker in regards to reassignment, thanks for enlightening me. L+G tends to be more neutral about biological parents (surrogate parent is talked about quite a bit actually, even the inclusion of a 3rd platonic partner) here, so I guess it's just different distribution due to locations.

I think it might have to do with the means of exposure, I rarely watch TV,

Ah, ok, mainly thinking of TV comedy here.

It's a MRA thread, but we arrived at it not by MRA means

True.

Here's the thing, there's already an acknowledgement that this IS a problem (even by Justice departments). But it doesn't enter the public consciousness, how do we cut through all that?

We personally, or we as society or institutions?

One route is comedy which you seem to despise, the serious route is filled with political exploitation. That's the solution I was asking for. I mean, short of a mandatory Justice class as part of the curriculum (the last time that got brought up... it wasn't pretty).

Well, it's not so much in comedy that I despise, it's the way I generally see it come up in comedy, which generally revolves around someone being raped in prison being inherently funny in of itself. I suspect this is due to how society views people in prison.

We personally, society changes overtime and we personally affects it somewhat, but we can't force society to do anything. Institutions are beyond us laymans (and they are failing). I mean, on one hand, I'm sorta promoting dialog of it through means that doesn't require falsification of data. You are against US TV comedy usage of it. These are individual decisions and actions that can build up at the grassroot level to influence the greater dialogue through market forces given that there's enough of us to nudge it around.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

It started as a parody of feminism, got a lot of flak from feminists for fairly obvious reasons - being a poorly disguised, paper thin way of being sexist while defending yourself by claiming it as humour - but... eventually became a thing.

I just don't understand why this could possibly become a thing, but apparently some people think men don't have enough power in the world. Men suffer from oppression but feminism isn't responsible for that.

Oppression against men is misandry. Oppression against women is misogyny. Equality in gender rights is feminism. I don't see why there needs to be more and more labels.

The unfortunate part of that is that feminism isn't equality in gender rights, even the best feminists only support women's rights, there is nothing done to help lessen the gender biases against men by feminists. Feminists also completely ignore things like prostate cancer and battered men, I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but their goals are female focused. Also the loudest platforms in feminism are misandrists and TERFs, not saying it's the majority of feminists, but it is the loudest and most powerful section. Mens Rights types are much the same, except they focus on oppressive attitudes, laws, and treatments against men, and their loudest and most powerful section happens to be made up of homophobes, transphobes, gay separatists, and misogynists. So two different groups, similar target goals with different focus, and the same essential problem with extremists who make the movements look bad.

Well, since feminism is centered around women's rights I'm not all that concerned with their focus on that topic.

The issue comes more when proponents of the moment support inequality as long as the sufferers of the inequality are members who aren't in their perceived group. This is why MRAs exist.

Feminists and MRAs at their best are just pursuing equality. Anything else and it's going the wrong way.

Yeah that was the point I was getting at there. Too many people flat out vilify whole movements, because of a few raging morons who happen to have the loudest and most influential public platforms. Which is one of the reasons I dislike the entire LGBT community, because there are too many conflicting interests between all four subsets for us to really bond together. That's basically the same problem that egalitarian movement as a whole has, it's too broad with too many individually focused agendas to avoid conflict of interest and focus.

I think the main premise of the LGBT community is the common interest of acceptance and equality. That premise should generally justify the alliance of individuals commonly oppressed over somewhat related issues regarding sexual and gender identity. Everything else, all the more specific interests that might only apply to one subset shouldn't be seen as an interest of the overall group. But I agree that it often is seen as all for one and one for all and can therefore end up reflecting poorly on the overall community when the one ends up being for terrible things.

But hey, individuals making everyone look bad? Just another sign that members of the LGBT community are only human too .

The premise is one thing, the practice is an entirely different thing. Groups that are lead by the louder lesbian and gay interest subset are notoriously bad for trans denial, and trans erasure. Though that's because the vocal part of the lesbian and gay communities are rather shady in my opinion, a lot of them play the politics to push personal views, which invariably exclude bisexual and transgender people. It's actually not that uncommon either in the lesbian and gay community to deny the credibility of transgender and bisexual people, so yeah as a lump LGBT community we have have serious issues. The only reason lesbian and gay interest tries to include bisexual and trans, while tending to be deniers on the subjects, is for reasons of looking good politically. That's why you so often find trans people who won't talk about the LGBT community including them, as they identify as part of the trans community, but not the larger LGBT community, even if they aren't straight.

 

[Lightknight]

It started as a parody of feminism, got a lot of flak from feminists for fairly obvious reasons - being a poorly disguised, paper thin way of being sexist while defending yourself by claiming it as humour - but... eventually became a thing.

I just don't understand why this could possibly become a thing, but apparently some people think men don't have enough power in the world. Men suffer from oppression but feminism isn't responsible for that.

Oppression against men is misandry. Oppression against women is misogyny. Equality in gender rights is feminism. I don't see why there needs to be more and more labels.

The unfortunate part of that is that feminism isn't equality in gender rights, even the best feminists only support women's rights, there is nothing done to help lessen the gender biases against men by feminists. Feminists also completely ignore things like prostate cancer and battered men, I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but their goals are female focused. Also the loudest platforms in feminism are misandrists and TERFs, not saying it's the majority of feminists, but it is the loudest and most powerful section. Mens Rights types are much the same, except they focus on oppressive attitudes, laws, and treatments against men, and their loudest and most powerful section happens to be made up of homophobes, transphobes, gay separatists, and misogynists. So two different groups, similar target goals with different focus, and the same essential problem with extremists who make the movements look bad.

Well, since feminism is centered around women's rights I'm not all that concerned with their focus on that topic.

The issue comes more when proponents of the moment support inequality as long as the sufferers of the inequality are members who aren't in their perceived group. This is why MRAs exist.

Feminists and MRAs at their best are just pursuing equality. Anything else and it's going the wrong way.

Yeah that was the point I was getting at there. Too many people flat out vilify whole movements, because of a few raging morons who happen to have the loudest and most influential public platforms. Which is one of the reasons I dislike the entire LGBT community, because there are too many conflicting interests between all four subsets for us to really bond together. That's basically the same problem that egalitarian movement as a whole has, it's too broad with too many individually focused agendas to avoid conflict of interest and focus.

I think the main premise of the LGBT community is the common interest of acceptance and equality. That premise should generally justify the alliance of individuals commonly oppressed over somewhat related issues regarding sexual and gender identity. Everything else, all the more specific interests that might only apply to one subset shouldn't be seen as an interest of the overall group. But I agree that it often is seen as all for one and one for all and can therefore end up reflecting poorly on the overall community when the one ends up being for terrible things.

But hey, individuals making everyone look bad? Just another sign that members of the LGBT community are only human too .

The premise is one thing, the practice is an entirely different thing. Groups that are lead by the louder lesbian and gay interest subset are notoriously bad for trans denial, and trans erasure. Though that's because the vocal part of the lesbian and gay communities are rather shady in my opinion, a lot of them play the politics to push personal views, which invariably exclude bisexual and transgender people. It's actually not that uncommon either in the lesbian and gay community to deny the credibility of transgender and bisexual people, so yeah as a lump LGBT community we have have serious issues. The only reason lesbian and gay interest tries to include bisexual and trans, while tending to be deniers on the subjects, is for reasons of looking good politically. That's why you so often find trans people who won't talk about the LGBT community including them, as they identify as part of the trans community, but not the larger LGBT community, even if they aren't straight.

Interesting, thanks for your perspective on it. You seem to be teaching me a lot lately.

 

[Gorrath]

It started as a parody of feminism, got a lot of flak from feminists for fairly obvious reasons - being a poorly disguised, paper thin way of being sexist while defending yourself by claiming it as humour - but... eventually became a thing.

I just don't understand why this could possibly become a thing, but apparently some people think men don't have enough power in the world. Men suffer from oppression but feminism isn't responsible for that.

Oppression against men is misandry. Oppression against women is misogyny. Equality in gender rights is feminism. I don't see why there needs to be more and more labels.

The unfortunate part of that is that feminism isn't equality in gender rights, even the best feminists only support women's rights, there is nothing done to help lessen the gender biases against men by feminists. Feminists also completely ignore things like prostate cancer and battered men, I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but their goals are female focused. Also the loudest platforms in feminism are misandrists and TERFs, not saying it's the majority of feminists, but it is the loudest and most powerful section. Mens Rights types are much the same, except they focus on oppressive attitudes, laws, and treatments against men, and their loudest and most powerful section happens to be made up of homophobes, transphobes, gay separatists, and misogynists. So two different groups, similar target goals with different focus, and the same essential problem with extremists who make the movements look bad.

Well, since feminism is centered around women's rights I'm not all that concerned with their focus on that topic.

The issue comes more when proponents of the moment support inequality as long as the sufferers of the inequality are members who aren't in their perceived group. This is why MRAs exist.

Feminists and MRAs at their best are just pursuing equality. Anything else and it's going the wrong way.

Yeah that was the point I was getting at there. Too many people flat out vilify whole movements, because of a few raging morons who happen to have the loudest and most influential public platforms. Which is one of the reasons I dislike the entire LGBT community, because there are too many conflicting interests between all four subsets for us to really bond together. That's basically the same problem that egalitarian movement as a whole has, it's too broad with too many individually focused agendas to avoid conflict of interest and focus.

I think the main premise of the LGBT community is the common interest of acceptance and equality. That premise should generally justify the alliance of individuals commonly oppressed over somewhat related issues regarding sexual and gender identity. Everything else, all the more specific interests that might only apply to one subset shouldn't be seen as an interest of the overall group. But I agree that it often is seen as all for one and one for all and can therefore end up reflecting poorly on the overall community when the one ends up being for terrible things.

But hey, individuals making everyone look bad? Just another sign that members of the LGBT community are only human too .

The premise is one thing, the practice is an entirely different thing. Groups that are lead by the louder lesbian and gay interest subset are notoriously bad for trans denial, and trans erasure. Though that's because the vocal part of the lesbian and gay communities are rather shady in my opinion, a lot of them play the politics to push personal views, which invariably exclude bisexual and transgender people. It's actually not that uncommon either in the lesbian and gay community to deny the credibility of transgender and bisexual people, so yeah as a lump LGBT community we have have serious issues. The only reason lesbian and gay interest tries to include bisexual and trans, while tending to be deniers on the subjects, is for reasons of looking good politically. That's why you so often find trans people who won't talk about the LGBT community including them, as they identify as part of the trans community, but not the larger LGBT community, even if they aren't straight.

Interesting, thanks for your perspective on it. You seem to be teaching me a lot lately.

Just to chime in and back up what's being said, my wife is trans and bi and has major issues with how the gay community treats both trans and bi people. She does not consider herself part of the LGBT community because of this. The maginalization within the larger community is pretty appaling at times. Hearing a supporter of gay rights bash bisexuals in the same ways some christians bash gays is disheartening to say the least. As a sociological study though, it's fascinating.

 

[Lightknight]

It started as a parody of feminism, got a lot of flak from feminists for fairly obvious reasons - being a poorly disguised, paper thin way of being sexist while defending yourself by claiming it as humour - but... eventually became a thing.

I just don't understand why this could possibly become a thing, but apparently some people think men don't have enough power in the world. Men suffer from oppression but feminism isn't responsible for that.

Oppression against men is misandry. Oppression against women is misogyny. Equality in gender rights is feminism. I don't see why there needs to be more and more labels.

The unfortunate part of that is that feminism isn't equality in gender rights, even the best feminists only support women's rights, there is nothing done to help lessen the gender biases against men by feminists. Feminists also completely ignore things like prostate cancer and battered men, I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but their goals are female focused. Also the loudest platforms in feminism are misandrists and TERFs, not saying it's the majority of feminists, but it is the loudest and most powerful section. Mens Rights types are much the same, except they focus on oppressive attitudes, laws, and treatments against men, and their loudest and most powerful section happens to be made up of homophobes, transphobes, gay separatists, and misogynists. So two different groups, similar target goals with different focus, and the same essential problem with extremists who make the movements look bad.

Well, since feminism is centered around women's rights I'm not all that concerned with their focus on that topic.

The issue comes more when proponents of the moment support inequality as long as the sufferers of the inequality are members who aren't in their perceived group. This is why MRAs exist.

Feminists and MRAs at their best are just pursuing equality. Anything else and it's going the wrong way.

Yeah that was the point I was getting at there. Too many people flat out vilify whole movements, because of a few raging morons who happen to have the loudest and most influential public platforms. Which is one of the reasons I dislike the entire LGBT community, because there are too many conflicting interests between all four subsets for us to really bond together. That's basically the same problem that egalitarian movement as a whole has, it's too broad with too many individually focused agendas to avoid conflict of interest and focus.

I think the main premise of the LGBT community is the common interest of acceptance and equality. That premise should generally justify the alliance of individuals commonly oppressed over somewhat related issues regarding sexual and gender identity. Everything else, all the more specific interests that might only apply to one subset shouldn't be seen as an interest of the overall group. But I agree that it often is seen as all for one and one for all and can therefore end up reflecting poorly on the overall community when the one ends up being for terrible things.

But hey, individuals making everyone look bad? Just another sign that members of the LGBT community are only human too .

The premise is one thing, the practice is an entirely different thing. Groups that are lead by the louder lesbian and gay interest subset are notoriously bad for trans denial, and trans erasure. Though that's because the vocal part of the lesbian and gay communities are rather shady in my opinion, a lot of them play the politics to push personal views, which invariably exclude bisexual and transgender people. It's actually not that uncommon either in the lesbian and gay community to deny the credibility of transgender and bisexual people, so yeah as a lump LGBT community we have have serious issues. The only reason lesbian and gay interest tries to include bisexual and trans, while tending to be deniers on the subjects, is for reasons of looking good politically. That's why you so often find trans people who won't talk about the LGBT community including them, as they identify as part of the trans community, but not the larger LGBT community, even if they aren't straight.

Interesting, thanks for your perspective on it. You seem to be teaching me a lot lately.

Just to chime in and back up what's being said, my wife is trans and bi and has major issues with how the gay community treats both trans and bi people. She does not consider herself part of the LGBT community because of this. The maginalization within the larger community is pretty appaling at times. Hearing a supporter of gay rights bash bisexuals in the same ways some christians bash gays is disheartening to say the least. As a socialogical study though, it's fascinating.

Yes, it is morbidly fascinating to say the least. Over the past year I've seen a lot more conflict specifically between the lesbian and transgender communities. But perhaps that's because of how much more mobilized the feminist movement is within the lesbian community and how that may impact gender identities.

I mean, you almost can't write this kind of interaction if you tried.

 

[Gorrath]

I feel like the MRM is one small step away from a very important revelation. Unfortunately, taking that step would essentially be putting yourself on the same side as feminists, even radical feminists, so they don't take it.

The revelation is simply the fact that traditional gender roles are entirely bunk and hold little value in an enlightened, free society. Radical feminists call this societal expectations of gender roles the "patriarchy" which is a somewhat annoying term because of how liberally it is used and how it sounds. But the idea remains intact, the "patriarchy", or societal attitudes about gender and sex perpetrated by both men and women dictate how men and women should act through societal coercion. More moderate, contemporary, political feminists sometimes like to use the patriarchy to their own ends, achieving certain political ends using these societal attitudes that benefit them when they see fit.

So when MRAs complain about things like child support, men being expendable, expected to have no emotions, etc. what they're really getting bad about is the "patriarchy" or very old, very traditional views of man that are ingrained in our culture.

Some might say it's the patriarchy "backfiring" but that's not true, because the "patriarchy" is not a gun wielded by man and pointed at women, it's old muskets and cannons and ballistas and trebuchets, no longer manned by those dead for centuries, pointed at all of us, but they blend so seamlessly into the scenery that no one even notices them anymore. Just as we have ancient ideas of class and religion and authoritarianism still present in our culture. The past is always present, whether we like it or not.

We can see the different reactions to this in the "manosphere", people who recognize the inequality but don't want to acknowledge or recognize the root cause. Some take a more "moderate" route (AVFM), ignoring hundreds of years of history and instead want to focus on the last 50 years, thinking that these methods of men-screwing came about with the rise of political feminism. Others take the blue pill, wanting to believe that old, traditional gender types are fine, and that everything would be fine if we just went back to women being nothing but Kinder, Kuche, Kirche [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder,_K%C3%BCche,_Kirche] (Return of Kings and the ilk). To them, they're willing to accept problems for men so long as women are also getting screwed (both literally and figuratively). Then you just sorta have the ragers, people who don't much care about broader contexts or history or cultural issues and just want to take women down a notch.

But this is why it is easy to simply write them off as misogynists, because they go to such lengths to avoid talking about the root causes of their problems and try to find common ground with feminists, because they have decided for themselves that they are anti-feminist, and thus can't agree with them on anything.

I agree with everything you've said here. I've made all of these same arguments myself many times. But I think you are perhaps giving feminism too much credit and MRM not enough. There are plenty of feminists who think the patriarchy is what you and I both say that it isn't, even influential ones who write books for women's studies courses at Uni. And, there are plenty of MRAs that do understand what you and I have said on this and totally agree.

When more of MRM accepts that traditional gender roles (as enforced by society as rules for acceptable behavior) are the root cause of men's and women's issues, we'll all be better off. On the same note, when more feminists accept that the patriarchy exists because men and women support it and accept that it isn't a weapon weilded by men against women but, as you so rightly say, is pointed at everyone, we'll all be better off. MRM and feminism are rife with bungled attempts to blame the opposite sex for all their woes. The sooner that crap stops the sooner we can confront the real problem.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Just to chime in and back up what's being said, my wife is trans and bi and has major issues with how the gay community treats both trans and bi people. She does not consider herself part of the LGBT community because of this. The maginalization within the larger community is pretty appaling at times. Hearing a supporter of gay rights bash bisexuals in the same ways some christians bash gays is disheartening to say the least. As a sociological study though, it's fascinating.

Par for the course, though, that sort of failure is everywhere. Though, makes it particularly exasperating when people talk about the LGBT community as a scary monolithic whole taking over or whatever.

 

[hentropy]

I agree with everything you've said here. I've made all of these same arguments myself many times. But I think you are perhaps giving feminism too much credit and MRM not enough. There are plenty of feminists who think the patriarchy is what you and I both say that it isn't, even influential ones who write books for women's studies courses at Uni. And, there are plenty of MRAs that do understand what you and I have said on this and totally agree.

When more of MRM accepts that traditional gender roles (as enforced by society as rules for acceptable behavior) are the root cause of men's and women's issues, we'll all be better off. On the same note, when more feminists accept that the patriarchy exists because men and women support it and accept that it isn't a weapon weilded by men against women but, as you so rightly say, is pointed at everyone, we'll all be better off. MRM and feminism are rife with bungled attempts to blame the opposite sex for all their woes. The sooner that crap stops the sooner we can confront the real problem.

Well this is a thread about the MRM but even then I still took some jabs at feminism. Feminism is like "capitalism", there's some basic agreement about what it's about but calling yourself a capitalist doesn't mean much, specifically. Every country in the world is capitalist to some extent (except maybe North Korea, who knows) but there is still a whole lot of variety within that.

MRM has a decent amount of variety too, but... less. It doesn't help that they don't even really have multiple organizations and well-educated people debating in a rational way, but rather just a few subreddits and websites. Second-wave feminism, especially in their little enclaves, did have a penchant for unabashed misandry and mixed in real rational arguments with trying to strip men of individuality. Third-wave online feminism becomes a bit too fixated on trying to win gold in the Oppression Olympics. It's important to note that fringe groups can really amplify themselves online. At the same time, the second wave gave us self-empowerment shaking off those gender roles while the third is making us aware that feminism, like everything else, is affected by race, class, orientation, gender identity, and other things. That perhaps being an upper-class cis white woman in college isn't exactly the height of systemic oppression.

So you have to take the good with the bad. There has never been a movement where every person, respected or no, was a person with great ideas who could communicate them rationally in ways a layman can consume and understand them. If the MRM had actually done anything beyond complain on the internet about the matriarchal shadow government, then I'd be more inclined to give them more credit.

 

[Gorrath]

Just to chime in and back up what's being said, my wife is trans and bi and has major issues with how the gay community treats both trans and bi people. She does not consider herself part of the LGBT community because of this. The maginalization within the larger community is pretty appaling at times. Hearing a supporter of gay rights bash bisexuals in the same ways some christians bash gays is disheartening to say the least. As a sociological study though, it's fascinating.

Par for the course, though, that sort of failure is everywhere. Though, makes it particularly exasperating when people talk about the LGBT community as a scary monolithic whole taking over or whatever.

Well that's a common response, right? People tend to look at movements they don't agree with as being monolithic groupthink devoid of common sense and critical thought. Some of the smartest people I know do this and it drives me crazy. I do everything I can to avoid this pitfall by looking at what movements stand for, what ideollogy the movement is based on, rather than what members of those movements do/act like. This is also why I tend to be a feminist who constantly argues with feminists, an MRA that constantly argues with MRAs, an LGBT ally that constantly argues with LGBT people and other allies ect. Of course then people often respond by telling me that I'm not a feminist because I'm not blaming men, or not an MRA because I'm not some misogynyst who thinks a woman's place is in the kitchen, or not an animal right's supporter because I love a rare steak. It's an odd thing I don't think I quite understand.

 

[Gorrath]

If the MRM had actually done anything beyond complain on the internet about the matriarchal shadow government, then I'd be more inclined to give them more credit.

I snipped out the part of your reply that I agree with, which as you can see, is just about damned everything. The issue I take is with the above. On what basis do you make this claim? MRM existed long before the modern internet and I personally belong to an MRM activist group who does lots of things that aren't what you describe. As you said, the internet, and most media really, amplifies the crazy. Since you know that to be true, why then assume that MRM is just what you find on the internet?

I think the biggest problem with MRM is that it was founded as a reactionary movement. On a fair few points, this reactionary attitude was completely justified. On others, it was not justified at all. Since it was founded as a reaction to second wave feminism, and people accept feminism as being an academically backed movement, MRM is seen as being like the climate change denialists of gender politics. This image is not helped by MRAs who actually do treat it like that themselves or the feminists that engage in blatant special pleading by condemning MRM for those MRAs while defending feminism by claiming crazy feminists don't count but crazy MRAs totally do. Even in the academic world some very questionable or outright bullshit ideas get published if they are linked to feminism while even the best MRA ideas and deeds are treated like attempts to send us back to the stone age (or the 50's.)

I can elaborate more specifically on what I mean and give examples, but I don't want to belabor you with an essay you didn't ask for.

 

[Lightknight]

Urgh... MRAs are just like feminists. Some have legitimate claims and issues, but most of them just whine about trivial stuff that doesn?t matter. I swear to God... The MRAs that are whining about a woman being in the Mad Max film? They need to fuck right off.

MRAs are whining about a woman being a star of the film?

Are you just automatically grouping any gendered discussion whatsoever on the side of feminists or the MRAs?

Maybe you're actually just complaining about sexists?

Anyways, I don't know about you guys but this is totally what life is like for me as a white male:

<youtube=EC21NF5rbSk>

It's the best. I don't have to worry about unemployment, getting mugged or anyone criticizing anything I do. If I'm ever bored I get to stretch my scrotum into a pan flute and play a tune or unfurl it into a sail boat to ride into the sun. Literally. The. Best.

On a serious note, I have personally been on the receiving end of sexism that prevented my promotion within an organization (in fact, the employer kept the only three white guys she hired in the mail room and nowhere else all by ourselves with no chance of promotion). Of the 50 or so employees there were only 5 or so white people at all (including the 3 mail clerks).

My wife currently works for an agency that just bullied, forced, and fired a disproportionate number of men out of an already largely female agency (I can never get the number of people straight but it's something like 60 people having left the agency in the last 6 months with 50 of them being male).

As long as there is prejudice based inequality in any form there needs to be people willing to stand against it. We just need to make sure what we're pushing for is equality and not superiority or that's when things go wrong and the crazies get a soap box.

 

[hentropy]

I snipped out the part of your reply that I agree with, which as you can see, is just about damned everything. The issue I take is with the above. On what basis do you make this claim? MRM existed long before the modern internet and I personally belong to an MRM activist group who does lots of things that aren't what you describe. As you said, the internet, and most media really, amplifies the crazy. Since you know that to be true, why then assume that MRM is just what you find on the internet?

I think the biggest problem with MRM is that it was founded as a reactionary movement. On a fair few points, this reactionary attitude was completely justified. On others, it was not justified at all. Since it was founded as a reaction to second wave feminism, and people accept feminism as being an academically backed movement, MRM is seen as being like the climate change denialists of gender politics. This image is not helped by MRAs who actually do treat it like that themselves or the feminists that engage in blatant special pleading by condemning MRM for those MRAs while defending feminism by claiming crazy feminists don't count but crazy MRAs totally do. Even in the academic world some very questionable or outright bullshit ideas get published if they are linked to feminism while even the best MRA ideas and deeds are treated like attempts to send us back to the stone age (or the 50's.)

I can elaborate more specifically on what I mean and give examples, but I don't want to belabor you with an essay you didn't ask for.

Well as far as I know it didn't have the moniker "Men's Rights Movement/Activism" until the internet age, and it was always reactionary. As far as I know, there have been groups actually advocating for a lot of different reforms in a level-headed way, but these groups usually do not associate with the MRM in name. I think of the Good Men Project as a more recent example. Organizations that do good work with real goals, and aren't acknowledged by even the moderate MRAs like AVFM, with those same MRAs usually not putting forward any concerted effort to do more than complain on the internet.

I suppose at a certain point it just becomes an argument about what counts as MRA or feminist or whatever, and that's not really an argument I want get into. I didn't mean to suggest that there's been no organization anywhere that has actually constructively advocated for men's issues, only that groups typically associated with MRM or menninist or whatever they want to call themselves now has done much on that score. Even if there has been money donated to shelters, which I'm sure there has been, they don't go much further than that. When I see a bad portrayal of a man on youtube or elsewhere, I don't see them coming in droves to call it out like feminists do with women, but rather they just go and argue with the feminists when they do point it out, whenever feminism is brought up. Take the recent Mad Max madness, what are some of them so upset about? Because a portrayal of a WOMAN as something other than a delicate flower/love interest. But anyways I'm probably preaching to the choir on that so I'll just end it here.

 

[Gorrath]

I snipped out the part of your reply that I agree with, which as you can see, is just about damned everything. The issue I take is with the above. On what basis do you make this claim? MRM existed long before the modern internet and I personally belong to an MRM activist group who does lots of things that aren't what you describe. As you said, the internet, and most media really, amplifies the crazy. Since you know that to be true, why then assume that MRM is just what you find on the internet?

I think the biggest problem with MRM is that it was founded as a reactionary movement. On a fair few points, this reactionary attitude was completely justified. On others, it was not justified at all. Since it was founded as a reaction to second wave feminism, and people accept feminism as being an academically backed movement, MRM is seen as being like the climate change denialists of gender politics. This image is not helped by MRAs who actually do treat it like that themselves or the feminists that engage in blatant special pleading by condemning MRM for those MRAs while defending feminism by claiming crazy feminists don't count but crazy MRAs totally do. Even in the academic world some very questionable or outright bullshit ideas get published if they are linked to feminism while even the best MRA ideas and deeds are treated like attempts to send us back to the stone age (or the 50's.)

I can elaborate more specifically on what I mean and give examples, but I don't want to belabor you with an essay you didn't ask for.

Well as far as I know it didn't have the moniker "Men's Rights Movement/Activism" until the internet age, and it was always reactionary. As far as I know, there have been groups actually advocating for a lot of different reforms in a level-headed way, but these groups usually do not associate with the MRM in name. I think of the Good Men Project as a more recent example. Organizations that do good work with real goals, and aren't acknowledged by even the moderate MRAs like AVFM, with those same MRAs usually not putting forward any concerted effort to do more than complain on the internet.

I suppose at a certain point it just becomes an argument about what counts as MRA or feminist or whatever, and that's not really an argument I want get into. I didn't mean to suggest that there's been no organization anywhere that has actually constructively advocated for men's issues, only that groups typically associated with MRM or menninist or whatever they want to call themselves now has done much on that score. Even if there has been money donated to shelters, which I'm sure there has been, they don't go much further than that. When I see a bad portrayal of a man on youtube or elsewhere, I don't see them coming in droves to call it out like feminists do with women, but rather they just go and argue with the feminists when they do point it out, whenever feminism is brought up. Take the recent Mad Max madness, what are some of them so upset about? Because a portrayal of a WOMAN as something other than a delicate flower/love interest. But anyways I'm probably preaching to the choir on that so I'll just end it here.

You appear to have some misinformation going on here. MRM as a movement was founded in the 70s out of the Men's Liberation Movement. The term MRM was not invented in the internet age. It absolutely was a reactionary movement that was founded as anti-feminist. This is where it starts to become a problem because it was specifically reacting to the parts of second wave feminism that the movement felt (in many cases rightly) that men and masculinity were being outright demonized. This anti-feminist reaction has been errorneously construed by many feminists and even people identifying as MRAs to mean that MRM objects to all or most of feminist ideollogy even though this was not at all the case (with the caveat that, obviously, people in the movement had different ideas about what should be objected to.) Instead of MRM being viewed as objecting to specific parts of second wave feminist teaching about men, masculinity and the nature of the patriarchy, it is instead viewed as being wholly anti-feminist.

The second major reason for the founding of MRM was to combat the problems created by a swiftly advancing feminist movement that was so focussed on women's rights that issues with men's rights were either wholly ignored, hand-waived, or contextualized as being less important or not important. Even early MRAs did good work in fighting for the adoption of better laws and attitudes towards men with regard to how they were being treated in family court, a problem that has been given little more than lipservice even in modern feminism and worse, very prominent and influential feminist organizations directly opposing legislation to help remedy the issue.

I don't personally care for AVFM even if it serves some positive function for the same reason I don't care for a ton of feminist blogs/forums/sites that often engage in rather questionable assertions or become rife with finger-pointing and blame games. You will find a ton of that on the net regardless of which movement you want to look at. The internet can be a festering cesspool of scum and villany. My group spends no time as a group on the internet, we are all too busy with activism as opposed to slacktivism. I would share more details but I don't like letting really personal information of mine that could identify me out into the wilds of the internet. If you look at the work done by MRM groups that aren't of the internet slacktivist variety like r/redpill and AVFM I think (hope) you'll see the good work.

Lastly, there is major misinformation about the Mad Max reaction. The principal article written against the film was, as happens so damned often, attributed to MRA when the person who write it is absolutely NOT an MRA. Return of Kings is not an MRA site and it is my understanding that the guy who runs the place is actually anti-MRM. But because MRM is linked to every wacko with batshit ideas about getting women back into the sandwitch making business, the headlines read what they read. In fact, as a reaction to all of that my MRM group used our movie night to go support Mad Max. Everyone agreed it was an awesome film with some great messages and characterization. Low and behold, not one of my MRA buddies think that the message, "women shouldn't be treated like property" is a fantastic one!

Anyway, hope some of that helps you understand my position. The misinformation about MRM from without and within has created a situation where it is almost toxic to associate with it. I still do it though, just as I call myself a feminist despite Tumblr.

 

[Phlap]

In an ideal world, MRA's and feminists would be one group, fighting for equal rights of both sexes.

Ah well.

 

[hentropy]

You appear to have some misinformation going on here. MRM as a movement was founded in the 70s out of the Men's Liberation Movement. The term MRM was not invented in the internet age. It absolutely was a reactionary movement that was founded as anti-feminist. This is where it starts to become a problem because it was specifically reacting to the parts of second wave feminism that the movement felt (in many cases rightly) that men and masculinity were being outright demonized. This anti-feminist reaction has been errorneously construed by many feminists and even people identifying as MRAs to mean that MRM objects to all or most of feminist ideollogy even though this was not at all the case (with the caveat that, obviously, people in the movement had different ideas about what should be objected to.) Instead of MRM being viewed as objecting to specific parts of second wave feminist teaching about men, masculinity and the nature of the patriarchy, it is instead viewed as being wholly anti-feminist.

The second major reason for the founding of MRM was to combat the problems created by a swiftly advancing feminist movement that was so focussed on women's rights that issues with men's rights were either wholly ignored, hand-waived, or contextualized as being less important or not important. Even early MRAs did good work in fighting for the adoption of better laws and attitudes towards men with regard to how they were being treated in family court, a problem that has been given little more than lipservice even in modern feminism and worse, very prominent and influential feminist organizations directly opposing legislation to help remedy the issue.

I don't personally care for AVFM even if it serves some positive function for the same reason I don't care for a ton of feminist blogs/forums/sites that often engage in rather questionable assertions or become rife with finger-pointing and blame games. You will find a ton of that on the net regardless of which movement you want to look at. The internet can be a festering cesspool of scum and villany. My group spends no time as a group on the internet, we are all too busy with activism as opposed to slacktivism. I would share more details but I don't like letting really personal information of mine that could identify me out into the wilds of the internet. If you look at the work done by MRM groups that aren't of the internet slacktivist variety like r/redpill and AVFM I think (hope) you'll see the good work.

Lastly, there is major misinformation about the Mad Max reaction. The principal article written against the film was, as happens so damned often, attributed to MRA when the person who write it is absolutely NOT an MRA. Return of Kings is not an MRA site and it is my understanding that the guy who runs the place is actually anti-MRM. But because MRM is linked to every wacko with batshit ideas about getting women back into the sandwitch making business, the headlines read what they read. In fact, as a reaction to all of that my MRM group used our movie night to go support Mad Max. Everyone agreed it was an awesome film with some great messages and characterization. Low and behold, not one of my MRA buddies think that the message, "women shouldn't be treated like property" is a fantastic one!

Anyway, hope some of that helps you understand my position. The misinformation about MRM from without and within has created a situation where it is almost toxic to associate with it. I still do it though, just as I call myself a feminist despite Tumblr.

I was aware of the Men's Liberation Movement. There's been reactionists and anti-feminists around for as long as feminism has been around. The idea of granting them basic citizenship rights like owning property had backlash, and of course so did suffrage. I suppose one could lump in all these reactionaries as MRAs. This is what I meant by trying to figure out what is and is not MRA. It seems to me at least that the birth of the internet and contemporary feminism changed the movement enough that it could be called something different, or just seen as something different.

And again, I don't doubt there are real groups that aren't total redpillers doing actual good work that I would agree with.

The reason feminists were mostly snarky, especially at one time and continuing today, isn't because men don't have problems but that they seemed to pale in comparison. At one time it was normal in our free and enlightened society for girls to be brainwashed into believing that a mommy is all they could be, pressured to get married usually as early as possible, the only schooling they need being basics and finishing school, and once they were married to a man that they may or may not have liked, it was legal to be beaten and raped along with your kids and divorce essentially means homelessness. While there were obviously exceptions to this, women getting educated and contributing in all sorts of ways, even they were marginalized.

In comparison, men having a hard time getting into the child care industry or getting the shaft in custody cases seemed like a problem not worth getting worked up about. "We'll get worked up about men's issues when more than a handful show up at our rallies." Over time society did change but the tribalism, animosity, and alarms about oppression remained, and I agree it's time to put an end to it all.

As I have gathered about Mad Max, while MRAs as a group have not called for boycotts of the movie and Return of Kings is considered fringe even by most MRAs, there is still overlap. It was an AVFM staffer who shared a meme about the boycott and there was much talk on the AVFM forums about it. That's why I said "some", it's clearly not a consensus but not entirely unworthy of mention, considering AVFM is often pointed to as the "good" MRA space. There are certain sex-negative feminists which see all BDSM as rape that called for a boycott of Fifty Shades on those same grounds, and that was just as silly, but it was only some feminists (most people didn't see it because it was terrible).

Edit: Clarey's not a staffer, read my source [http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/05/18/to-one-mens-rights-activist-lying-about-mras-boycotting-mad-max-fury-road-is-worse-than-denying-the-holocaust/] wrong.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

In comparison, men having a hard time getting into the child care industry or getting the shaft in custody cases seemed like a problem not worth getting worked up about. "We'll get worked up about men's issues when more than a handful show up at our rallies." Over time society did change but the tribalism, animosity, and alarms about oppression remained, and I agree it's time to put an end to it all.

One thing that most people tend to miss here is actually health care. Men tend to get the shaft in many instances in health care, where as women get it pretty good. Testicular cancer and prostate cancer are good examples of where men have an awful time of it, because for one there is very little in terms charitable resources, which can make prostate cancer a death sentence. On the other hand breast cancer gets loads of funding and has a really high survival rate. There is also the "Go Red for Women" campaign that spreads awareness about heart disease in women, yet heart disease is just as common in men, if not even more so, but no awareness movements for men's heart disease exists.

So while we need to put an end to tribalism and animosity, we also need to realize that there are plenty of imbalances on all sides that need to be addressed, but aren't.