When you read enough of their youtube comments, every once in a while one of them gets down to the nitty-gritty: "THE POWER OF THE PUSSY." Women are the ones who decide whether there's going to be sex, and this is seen by desperate males as an imbalance of power.

Technically, though, men and women have the same power, an equal up or down vote. Either one can say no; the difference is that men never do.

There's no doubt that Feminism has made it easier for women to get by without men, but I'll bet that men still grow up learning that their value as men is tied to their cocksmanship, and so feminism is seen quite literally as a threat to manhood. I really do believe that men are now more dependent on women for their self-worth than the other way around. The only men's movement of value will free men of this neediness. Hitting back at feminism is not going to make this any better.

It's called responsibility. "You tell me it's the institution, you better free your mind instead".

Your vague smears are virtually identical to the vague smears against feminism.

Seriously, you're going to pull out "no true scotsman" and not think about how the same concept is deployed, not just in feminism, but every social movement ever. Social movements are contained of diverse individuals with different perspectives and finding the "one true center" depends on your viewpoint.

I proudly consider myself supporting of both men's rights and feminism, since both address problems that the other steadfastly refuses to.

Myths about MR:

1. MRAs think women and feminism are oppressing them. False: this is projection. Since feminism blames "men" as a unit for everything and everything wrong with the world, people assume a movement for equal rights and dignity for men must be doing the opposite and blaming women, or feminism. No, the mainstream belief among MRAs is that we lived in a culture that maintains outdated gender roles that are no longer relevant for our lives, and we should be free to live without their mandates. Feminism will agree with this, but then quickly shift gears to imply that gender roles have to be a contest, that "men have it better," and therefore, any part of those outdated gender roles that holds back men can be preserved or ignored for the time being. You will NEVER see feminists encouraging women to "unpack" their attitudes about non-gender conforming or feminine men, because that clashes fundamentally from their "men oppress women" worldview. The MRM rejects that and acknowledges that both genders need to unpack their baggage about each other.

2. MRAs are just mad about losing male privilege and want to preserve it. This is bonkers insane. Losing male privilege isn't our fear. It's our fucking DREAM. It is the light at the end of the tunnel.

3. MRAs are all straight white privileged men. False, many queer men participate, since the intersection of anti-gay hate and imprisonment of men within the corrupt male gender role are firmly tied together. There are also many men of color engaging with the issues of hypermasculization of black and Latino men and demasculization of Asian men.

4. MRAs don't really care about (suicide victims, rape victims, abused men, etc), they just want an excuse. Clearly, no one can make a claim like this in good faith because it requires knowing someone's emotional state. Second, it's parently untrue. Earl Silverman tried to set up a safe house for men, out of his own pocket, received no funding, had to shut it down, and killed himself. When this reached larger exposure, activists tried to set up a new program in his name, donating thousands of dollars that were then stolen by a woman who was pretending to be an activist. I assume it's pure greed, but it could be an intentional attack of bigotry. Strange, how the movement of evil misogynists was conned out of their humanitarian goals by a woman collaborator.

5. MRAs can just set up their own men's centers and address their own issues. Feminists aren't stopping them. Untrue! Feminists aggressively mobilize against any attempt to address issues of relevance to men. Remember the Simon Fraser University Men's Center? The feminists that attacked it have finally taken down their embarrassingly shameful and offensive smear vid, but you can see a sanitized report on the "controversy," including a brief clip of the smear vid.


The bottom line is this: It is a misguided *idolization* of men and patriarchy to claim that the male gender role itself is a position of power and privilege. If this were the case, patriarchy would be the most just, fair, and empowering social construct ever conceived, since it empowers a full 50% of the population.

The male gender role, like the female gender role, exists to serve the elite. It exists to make a portion of the population easier to control and exploit by defining the boundaries of their experience. It is NOT a privilege, and the great failing of feminism has been this love affair with maleness and the blind worship of the power of patriarchy.

The simplest illustration is this: Imagine the extremely polygynous society, dominated by a few chiefs, men, with a gaggle of wives. This leaves a large population of lone, marginalized men to be used in violence against the group's enemies. So, which is more privileged? Which do you want to be? The wife in a harem owned as property? (And don't forget, some of the senior wives will be wielding a great deal of covert power in this social structure.) Or the marginalized cannon fodder? At least as a wife you have a greater life expectancy and quality of life. To claim that a society like this, or any society, can be reduced to "men vs. women" is idiotic. BOTH roles are oppressive. The winners are the elite. The winners are most certainly NEVER the rank and file of any demographic group. People are encouraged to think of their roles as a privilege, because that keeps them in line. In this way, feminism is one of the greatest allies "patriarchy" (read: "outdated gender roles") has ever had because they actually believe and proclaim that "men" as a group are the winners.

Also, I should point out another one of the big areas of misunderstanding, the idea that "MRAs think feminists should address men's issues."

This arises because when men attempt to address their own issues, feminists come along and say "Feminism already addresses that (and also you're misogynists for being concerned about men's issues)." So then you say, all right, feminism already addresses this, how about we address this as feminists then, whereupon they will "Men have it better, so feminism shouldn't worry about this."

MRAs are perfectly satisfied to address their own issues, but go figure, they aren't satisfied by some other group butting in and saying, "We'll take care of that except we won't."

And by the way, a much more adequate way to analyse social movements is not in the terms of "No True Scotsman," but in terms of "contested concepts." Google is your friend. This will take you up to undergrad-level sophistication on the express train.

zerdzer?

"Technically, though, men and women have the same power, an equal up or down vote. Either one can say no; the difference is that men never do."

YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. This attitude is part of why men's ability to give or withdraw consent is circumscribed. We talk about women's ability to consent being compromised. The difference is, while women's ability to consent is contested and imperfect, we actually recognize it. Attitudes like yours have completely eliminated the ability of men to consent.

I've been sexually assaulted by drunk women at bars more times than I can count. I've been the victim of coercive and unwelcome sexual activity by women. The difference is, I have NO culturally sanctioned recourse. Women have imperfect recourse. Men have none. I can't react with violence, or go to an authority figure or the owner of the venue to get them thrown out. That is the ambiance they want to promote. Female sexual assailants are good for business.



This is a recurring trend: Both genders are degraded in some way, but since only women are viewed as worthy of protection and sympathy, their exploitation is viewed as the "real problem," while male victims are the "exception" or they are asking for it in some existential way because some of the exploiters may (or may not) also be men. The idea that women should be more debased by their victimization and live in more fear is aggressively promoted both under traditional gender norms and under feminism. (Another area of their frequent agreement.)

E.g., corporal autonomy. The use of castrati and eunuchs throughout history is regarded as a mild curiosity, not the brutal, exploitative violation of male corporal autonomy that it was. "But men were the ones doing it!" No, the culture was doing it, and when women wielded power (as women have always done throughout history, although somewhat less often in very overt ways), they did it too. "Boys vs. girls" is intellectually bankrupt as a means of historical, social, and cultural analysis.

Meanwhile, the continuing barbarism of FGM is (rightly) described as a horror and (confusingly) laid at the feet of patriarchy and described as "violence against women," although in most regions, it is overwhelmingly perpetuated and supported by women, to the degree that men are often excluded from the decision-making process entirely and the practice is kept in "women's secret world." Those men that understand it tend to oppose it. The entire vile tradition is in fact a real-world example of women that are empowered and determining the course of their culture. (Our commitment to gender equality should be strengthened by the realization that men and women are equally capable of atrocity against themselves and others.)

Hmmm..who to trust? The lengthy, detailed, well thought out argument, or the brony creeper?

and wait a sec, a well thought out argument in favor of gender equality?

Fuck off, Grandmaster Funk, you rape culture apologist shitlord cis het scum. Patriarchy! Privilege!

This is an amazingly moronic premise you've got here:

>>>"It is a misguided *idolization* of men and patriarchy to claim that the male gender role itself is a position of power and privilege. If this were the case, patriarchy would be the most just, fair, and empowering social construct ever conceived, since it empowers a full 50% of the population."

Right. That's why our nation's CEO positions, governmental positions, military command positions, judgeships, managerial positions, research and scientific positions, etc. are all evenly split 50/50. And each gender is paid equally for equal work, without one getting an advantage over the other.

Blinders. You've got 'em in spades. But then again, I'm arguing with a internet sex-magnet, apparently.

And if only scholars like Mr. Funk had been around to save Martin Luther King all of those misconceptions he must have had. I can see it now, you walking up to him and setting him straight:

"The white man role, like the black man role, exists to serve the elite. It exists to make a portion of the population easier to control and exploit by defining the boundaries of their experience. It is NOT a privilege, and the great failing of the civil rights movement has been this love affair with whiteness and the blind worship of the power of whites."

It all makes SO much sense now!*


* and by that I mean you've left me convinced that MRAs have done even more mental gymnastics to justify their views than young earth creationists have.

Equating Martin Luther King's struggle to the modern feminist movie suggests a shaky understanding of both social movements.

*movement

I got this far:

>>Myths about MR:

>>1. MRAs think women and feminism are oppressing them. False: this is projection. Since feminism blames "men" as a unit for everything and everything wrong with the world,


Ack! Is it me?

"Well thought-out", this looks like is was scrapped from the dregs of /r/mensrights

>>Hmmm..who to trust? The lengthy, detailed, well thought out argument, or the brony creeper?

I'm certainly NOT going to trust anyone who uses terms like "brony creeper". Are you suggesting that people who watch a certain television show are not to be trusted?

http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/37ed/3wyvqzzj67w7z426g.jpg

pee

Unless they otherwise misrepresented what either group was stating, the number of people is irrelevant to the message, and is a logical fallacy to both include honestly and to spin the numbers on. Us 'Mericans give lip service to being people who care about what minority voices have to say, be they one or one million. Who we then go on to say they do and do not represent is our fallacy, not theirs, because they have only really represented themselves. It has been hypothesized that extremism in both directions determines where the middle is in our culture. If this is true, these extreme views serve as cautionary tales to the sane. The joke is that the media doesn't have to spin us much, humans are extremists by nature, and weirdos by profession.

I can't really tell if you disagree with me, but it's beautifully written.

My point is that there are men who believe (or who at least say) that the majority of feminists advocate genital mutilation of men. And there are women who believe (or who at least say) that interet rape culture (which certainly does exist) is in the mainstream among men. And the media sometimes encourages that view in people who don't understand how it works.

>>Who we then go on to say they do and do not represent is our fallacy, not theirs, because they have only really represented themselves.

Ever see TeaBaggers talk about how they represnt the "founding fathers" and the "The American People"? Me neither.

If you can't tell what he's saying, is it really beautifully written?

I wasn't trying to disagree or be beautiful, only point out that there's no standard for labels, so two people under one word can be opposites as easily as they align, making the word meaningless, so they only represent themselves with their message. I know two feminists, one who thinks feminism is being a woman with the same personal power and opportunities as any man, while the other thinks being a woman is getting to be an abusive dick slapping abuser to men just like a men do women (and that other women deserve to be raped and beaten in abusive relationships for being weak women who didn't think of it first). Why should any other woman just accept that either of these women represents them?

So in other words, they're exactly like modern feminists.

That's kind of an awful way to gauge a movement. I'm sure you could say the same thing about a lot of the Occupy protests.

The whole "rape culture" accusations scares me when it comes from the more radical protestors because it honestly sounds like they consider the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing to be condoning rape.

>>So in other words, they're exactly like modern feminists.

http://youtu.be/hh3YzzHw9P4

>>You can't engage MRAs on "what can we do about male suicide rates, workplace deaths, etc." because they don't actually give a shit about it. It's just an excuse to be angry and self righteous.

Not always. I remember being pleasantly surprised that the gentlemen who were planning a project on "Misandry in video games" went out of their way to make it clear that they were NOT acting in opposition to Anita Hussein Sarkeesian, and that they thought she was doing great work.

The important thing to remember is that, not only in spite of all this noise, but in great measure because of it, progress happens.

It's a tragedy these guys, and the MRA movement as a whole, as so universally tragicomic, because there really is room for a good discussion on the changing roles on men and women in global society.

America, as well as much of the rest of the world, is at an awkward crossroads in gender relations: The opportunity gulf between the sexes is rapidly closing and female authority figures are less and less novel, yet too much systemic injustice persists worldwide to hang up a "Mission Accomplished" banner. That's not much of a problem; progress is progress, after all. What is a problem is that during this transition, it's too easy to overcompensate for past injustices and, in the process, fall victim to the same prejudices and generalizations you're fighting against.

It always amazes me how many women--not just Radical Feminists, but otherwise intelligent, rational women--make outrageously sexist, patronizing, or otherwise ignorant comments that they would never tolerate if directed towards them. Things like "Men are lazy, self-absorbed idiots" or "Men need to be 'educated' into learning rape is wrong." They make awkward statements like "I must intimidate you because I'm so Strong and Powerful" and blame any reaction besides breathless awe on sexism. They deeply resent being patronized at the office, yet treat multibillionaire titans of industry like Meg Whitman and Carly Fironia as helpless little girls being bullied by vicious tech bloggers.

These are, of course, not serious problems. Minor hypocrisy is nothing compared to female circumcision, the appalling rape epidemic in India, or the systemic economic oppression in the Middle East. But it's still an impediment to progress on both sides, and remains something best addressed by both men and women. It's just too bad it won't happen here.

Nice try, Sexy Duck, but did you know Nintendo replaced a girl fox with a boy fox, IN A VIDEOGAME?

DQL and Nominal:

Claim: "MRAs just blame feminism for all of men's problems rather than actually doing anything about said problems"

Counter claim: "FEMINISMFEMINISMFEMINOSNIM HABLABBLABLABLANTITASURKESIAN"

never miss an opportunity to laugh at threatened privilege

One of the interesting things about feminism is how the people who feel threatened by it are generally the ones who've made it necessary.

In that respect it's like gay pride or Black History Month, where a major side effect is that it selectively outrages not just people who hate, but also those who actively avoid acknowledging the problem

I don't care about charisma, and I don't care what your goals are. It's all going to go to shit if you can't let women take the lead on this, because they're ahead of us. Say what you like about feminism, unlike the MRAs, it's actually accomplished something.

Most feminists don't believe that all men are rapists or the source of all evil, but... guess what? Women are bound to have a different perspective on gender relations. It doesn't mean they're always right or always wrong, but they may not see "Super Mario Brothers" the same way you do. Instead of railing at the injustice of some boring youtube vlog, you might want to just live with a difference of opinion, and stop being such a crybaby when people say mean things about men, like they've always done about every other group of people that ever walked the earth.

Stop whining about feminism, or GTFO.

>>Wasn't that the single most common accusation conservatives leveled at that Occupy movement?

No. The accusation was that they didn't have a 'list of demands'. Any occupier with half a brain could rattle off a list of laws they'd like enacted. The adoption of Basel-3 and the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall are two big ones. Anyway, poor analogies aside, a movement that claims to care about about, for instance, custody laws might want to know what they are and how they'd like them to be improved. The point stands.

As for the point about ad hominem; yes, people should criticize MRAs for their stupid, horrible ideology rather than their appearance. The centerpoint of the video for me was the fMRA at 2:44 going on about how men never ever oppressed women, they only 'protected' them. Absurdly stupid stuff like that is common in the MRM.