Mens Rights Activists
- Thread starter Daniel Ferguson
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Checking the 'About' page of Return of Kings is not hard. Neither is Googling "MRA Return of Kings". Doing either will reveal that they are explicitly anti-MRA. I don't really wanna give them the traffic, but here it is spoilered if you wanna:
They're not interested in rights at all, as far as I can tell.
The tirade of misinformation over this has been depressing to say the least. But let's not let the facts get in the way of the official truth, right? Anything bad done by a man must be an MRA >_<
In unrelated news, actual MRA Dan Perrins has been hunger striking and camping outside a Canadian Government building in an attempt to get them to fund shelters for male victims of domestic violence. But nope; that must be a cover, MRAs are REALLY concerned about whether or not you see an action movie.
http://www.returnofkings.com/about
http://www.returnofkings.com/7877/the-mens-rights-movement-is-no-place-for-men
http://www.returnofkings.com/31590/5-reasons-i-am-not-a-mens-rights-activist
http://www.returnofkings.com/7877/the-mens-rights-movement-is-no-place-for-men
http://www.returnofkings.com/31590/5-reasons-i-am-not-a-mens-rights-activist
They're not interested in rights at all, as far as I can tell.
The tirade of misinformation over this has been depressing to say the least. But let's not let the facts get in the way of the official truth, right? Anything bad done by a man must be an MRA >_<
In unrelated news, actual MRA Dan Perrins has been hunger striking and camping outside a Canadian Government building in an attempt to get them to fund shelters for male victims of domestic violence. But nope; that must be a cover, MRAs are REALLY concerned about whether or not you see an action movie.
A group that whose actual stated purpose is to further the rights of men (specifically fathers' rights) is not classified as part of the movement for Men's Rights? Really?thaluikhain said:
I could somewhat understand your point here if you were trying to specifically distinguish Fathers' rights from Men's rights here but otherwise this is just...weird thinking honestly.
Pretty sure it is. As I understand it the point of egalitarianism is to address imbalances wherever they occur and TO whomever they occur. I can sympathise greatly with that viewpoint and very much dislike the focus on one group or another group that other movements have.Zontar said:
Read down the list.. and they are only naming a few of them in that report...Zontar said:
"MensActivism
Reddit: Mens Rights
A Voice for Men"
To name a few...
The SPLC has discussed this repeatedly, for example:
"Men?s Rights Movement Spreads False Claims about Women
Misogynists in the men?s and fathers? rights movements have developed a set of claims about women to support their depictions of them as violent liars and manipulators of men. Some suggest that women attack men, even sexually, just as much as men attack women. Others claim that vast numbers of reported rapes of women, as much as half or even more, are fabrications designed to destroy men they don?t like or to gain the upper hand in contested custody cases. What follows is a brief look at some of these claims and what the best science really shows."
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/myths-of-the-manosphere-lying-about-women
Mostly it's lonely dudes bitching about how their totally valid lifestyle choices (complete arsehole) means they can't get a date, and like 3 people that thought zero access to their kids seemed a tad harsh so climbed on stuff dressed as Spiderman.inu-kun said:
The specific thing calling itself the Men's Rights Movement, no, men's rights in general, yes. The former is (at least nominally), part of the latter, not the whole.Lightspeaker said:
Many, many people care about the rights of men, but aren't part of the MRM. Now, for all I know, in that example, they might be part of the MRM, but there's no reason to assume that they are just because of an interest in male rights.
This is a falt-out falsehood. AS a member of and MRA group in my local area, the comparison to PETA is a fallacy meant to make us seem like lunatics. You are right about MRA being a reactionary to feminism. It is a reaction to feminism and feminist groups often ackowledging but failing to take action on many men's rights issues. Some of those groups are made up of men with an axe to grind due to being screwed over by women in their life. The same can be said of many women feminists.thaluikhain said:
You mean like myself and pretty much everyone associated with the group I belong to? There's a distinct special pleading that goes on with regard to MRM and Feminism where accusations against feminist groups are hand-waved as fallacies by the same people who use the same accusations against MRM. The MRM will have its loonies and will go through the same growing pains of any movement but distilling its activists down to stereotypes and conflating a movement with a specific activist group or groups is no more justified with MRM than it is with Feminism.thaluikhain said:
Okay I think I kinda see where you're going with this. Like the distinction between being in favour and supporting women's rights but not actually labelling yourself feminist, right?thaluikhain said:
No, because mainstream Feminism does not support Misandry, while the MRM not only supports Misogyny, it was basically founded on Misogyny. Feminism is not the opposite of MRM. MRM exists to try to stop feminism, Feminism exists to try to gain equality for women. BIG difference. Mainsteadm MRM is like the extremist of the extreme in feminism, not the mainstream, so it isn't really comparable. Mainstream feminism helps men, mainstream MRM does not do the same for women.Zontar said:
For example, Feminists were responsible for the domestic violence hotlines and services that both men and women utilize, along with many other resources that are available to both men and women that would not exist without feminists.
They're out there I guess, but I've not seen much of them save a couple of cracked articles pointing at their craziest and sneering.
I'd expect there are some who fall in the category of mra who are talking about a genuine problem (tendency for men to be viewed as inferior caregivers by default for example, which oddly borders feminist territory regarding negative expectations enforced by concepts of masculinity), but due to the internet and it's fish eye lens for the weird and outrage inducing, they're lumped in with the nutters who are getting the focus of attention.
Same nutters who, due to the disproportionate amount of attention they get, become the standard definition rather than the exceptions they are.
This is something feminists have to deal with too, quite frequently.
The most extreme examples of feminism are treated as the standard and the middle ground by many despite they too being the fringe elements who happen to garner the most attention with their antics.
The image of the placard, brandishing raging woman with short dyed hair and an angry expression is one that still lingers around feminism.
For both groups, this makes it harder for the whole, but I've never being able to decide if this is a phenomena that results from the internet and the speed of information dissemination it facilitates or simple human nature to be focused on oddity over the mundane.
Perhaps it's a combination of both.
I guess the only thing that can be done is remember that the internet is a poor window on the world.
Like I said, it's a fish eye lens, making most of the picture look smaller and the bit it's focused on so much bigger than either of them really are.
The other thing I take away from this thread...
These mra must really hate good movies.
I'd expect there are some who fall in the category of mra who are talking about a genuine problem (tendency for men to be viewed as inferior caregivers by default for example, which oddly borders feminist territory regarding negative expectations enforced by concepts of masculinity), but due to the internet and it's fish eye lens for the weird and outrage inducing, they're lumped in with the nutters who are getting the focus of attention.
Same nutters who, due to the disproportionate amount of attention they get, become the standard definition rather than the exceptions they are.
This is something feminists have to deal with too, quite frequently.
The most extreme examples of feminism are treated as the standard and the middle ground by many despite they too being the fringe elements who happen to garner the most attention with their antics.
The image of the placard, brandishing raging woman with short dyed hair and an angry expression is one that still lingers around feminism.
For both groups, this makes it harder for the whole, but I've never being able to decide if this is a phenomena that results from the internet and the speed of information dissemination it facilitates or simple human nature to be focused on oddity over the mundane.
Perhaps it's a combination of both.
I guess the only thing that can be done is remember that the internet is a poor window on the world.
Like I said, it's a fish eye lens, making most of the picture look smaller and the bit it's focused on so much bigger than either of them really are.
The other thing I take away from this thread...
These mra must really hate good movies.
MRM does not exist to "stop feminism." MRM was founded because of clear isntances in our modern society where sexism against men has led to institutionalized oppression. I encounter tons of feminists and progressives that out-right claim this opression doesn't exist, that there are no issues with sexism against men and that anything that seems like sexism or oppression against men is just sexism and oppression against women. It is those attitudes that caused the founding of MRM in response.Lil devils x said:
No, it was meant to illustrate the different between being a Men's Rights Activist and a men's rights activist. PETA was merely the first group to come to mind. Admittedly, I have no great respect for either group.Gorrath said:
Yes. Now, I don't doubt that there are people who are both, but I'd very much doubt they are in large numbers.Gorrath said:
The MRMs like that are in the same proportion and have the same power as the feminists like that, and no more? Yeah, I don't buy that at all.Gorrath said:
Now, you personally may genuinely care about rights, for both men and women, but I very much doubt that this is true of the MRM as a whole.
Yeah, more or less.Lightspeaker said:
What is not the case? The SPLC already addressed Mainstream MRA's as being misogynist, and YES, feminists are the ones responsible for bringing us our domestic violence and abuse hotlines, they have volunteered countless hours and raised the funds to bring us these services or they would not exist today. In addition, feminists are the ones fighting for men and women to be able to like and do the same things without being ostracized and ridiculed for doing so, that actually benefits men moreso than women, as if women wear mans pants they are less likely to be made fun of than a man in in a woman's dress.Zontar said:
So I am not sure what you are attempting to claim isn't true.
http://time.com/134152/the-toxic-appeal-of-the-mens-rights-movement/
Er...for the record just a few years ago there were reports that major feminist groups here in the UK were working on politicians behind the scenes to oppose more shelters for male domestic abuse victims because it'd take money away from shelters for women (because the ratio of funding was at the time drastically skewed in womens' favour, way beyond the actual ratios of victims, not sure how it is now).Lil devils x said:
I know there's a tendency to see your own side as the one true, just cause but its not exactly fair to just overlook the more unsavoury aspects of it. Which is why I'm not exactly a fan of either movement and prefer the middle ground of all problems of imbalance actually being addressed appropriately, not just those of one group.
Wasn't that shown that it would be more efficient to put the male victims in a hotel than to pay to upkeep a shelter due to the numbers affected? The difference is female victims are at epidemic levels while there are far less male victims that need to have resources allocated. You do not spend the same amount of resources on both male and female since the number of victims is not comparable. The funding should be according to the number of people affected.Lightspeaker said:
"Counselor: Like, normally they?d pay for a flat or something instead, they wouldnt, they don?t continue to keep you in a, you know, holding pattern in a hotel. Sometimes they make you stay for, like, two weeks in a hotel."
http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2013/04/02/reno-calls-a-domestic-violence-hotline-the-mra-reality-distortion-field-in-action/
But the hotel isn't good enough for the MRA, they want to be put in the shelter with the abused women..