The Misguided Message of Men's Rights Groups

[JerryL]

Revoltingest pretty much nailed my response. So I'm just going to say "hear hear!"

 

[JerryL]

Do you think that white people have had as much discrimination as African Americans in the past? I assume you also support white empowerment groups as well?

You mean like how feminists attempt to address problems white women have?

But yes. I suppose people like Colin Powell (on so many levels but in this case) when they oppose portions of affirmative action for its detremental effects to non-minorities. Yes: I would also attempt to bring attention to and resolution of problems which affect white people specifically; much as I do for problems specific to black people, men, women, Hispanics, native Americans, etc.

I'm not trying to disreguard any real issues here but I think that it is in fact true, objectively, that women have been oppressed over the years. I think we have made massive headway in terms of equality. We have. I also specifically remember saying that I wasn't discouraging men's issues (as a man they are important)

Indeed. I think we should tackle these issues. Strangely enough feminist groups have made more headway than MRA groups in many of these issues. In fact I don't know of a single thing MRA has accomplished. I know there have men things that they supported passed but it was generally due to another agency such as Father's Rights groups or domestic violence groups working with men on male victims of abuse and rape.

So your assertion is that, thus far, groups calling themselves by the title "men's rights" have been ineffective at political change?

I've got no opinion on that except to say "so what? I didn't think the topic was even remotely related to effecay of the organization itself. I thought we were discussing a Jezebel article and what it said".

Anti feminist means those that generally feel that feminism needs to be retracted or beat back. In 100% of the open MRA members I have debated felt that they were positive that feminism was about removing men from power and making women the dominate sex. This is of course ludicrous and irrational but none the less it was a common belief. It was that they wanted to abolish many feminist groups as well as remove some of their advancements. That is anti-feminism.

Which "feminist"? The one that says that men and women should have equal treatment, access, and opportunity? The one that says that there are issues generally effecting women which need to be addressed? I agree with that one.

Or is it the feminist that I read in that Jezebel article and its links? Is it the one that comes in my FB feed as Guerrilla Feminism? Is it the one with members who have said I was everything they hate because of my gender? The one tossing around (generally incorrectly) "mysogeny", "patriarchy", "male gaze", etc? I think you fail to acknowledge that one; while painting everyone discussing men's issues that way.

There is anti-MRA in feminist but there are not anti-men's issues in any where near the droves. Though I this is from my own observations.

Generally that is what feminism is. The name is misleading. Especially in recent years where it has expanded so much to simply mean equality rather than just women's issues.

Not to many of the people and groups operating under the "feminism" moniker.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you think that white people have had as much discrimination as African Americans in the past?

Generally, no.

I assume you also support white empowerment groups as well?

Oh, you're being artful with this question! I support any group which seeks justice for its members....white, black, male, female, believer, heathen. I oppose them if they're sexist, racist or otherwise bigoted & nefarious. But you won't trick me into supporting white supremacists, you wascally wag!

I'm not trying to disreguard any real issues here......

No...but isn't that the net effect of so many attacks upon the character of MRA activists?
(I never know whether "MRA" refers to mens rights activism, mens rights advocacy or men's rights activists. So you'll find my use of this initiallism inconsistent. Note that it is not an acronym. Dang.....I know how to digress!)

.....but I think that it is in fact true, objectively, that women have been oppressed over the years. I think we have made massive headway in terms of equality. We have. I also specifically remember saying that I wasn't discouraging men's issues (as a man they are important)

One can discourage advocacy without intending to. Who would want to identify as a MRA when hordes of feminists would fling poop at them? Something motivates the flinging....is it a sense of competition, feeling a threat, or misogyny? I find you social justice warriors inscrutable....why find conflict when your agendas are compatible & even the same?

Indeed. I think we should tackle these issues. Strangely enough feminist groups have made more headway than MRA groups in many of these issues.

This is because feminism has diverse members. Some are downright rational & friendly.

In fact I don't know of a single thing MRA has accomplished. I know there have men things that they supported passed but it was generally due to another agency such as Father's Rights groups or domestic violence groups working with men on male victims of abuse and rape.

Is this lack of knowledge due to your comprehensive review of all MRA works, or just your personal inexperience with them?

Anti femnist means those that generally feel that feminism needs to be retracted or beat back. In 100% of the open MRA members I have debated felt that they were positive that feminism was about removing men from power and making women the dominate sex. This is of course ludicrous and irrational but none the less it was a common belief. It was that they wanted to abolish many feminist groups as well as remove some of their advancements. That is anti-feminism.
There is anti-MRA in feminist but there are not anti-men's issues in any where near the droves. Though I this is from my own observations.
Generally that is what feminism is. The name is misleading. Especially in recent years where it has expanded so much to simply mean equality rather than just women's issues.

Perhaps the venue of your debates is less than the whole picture. I find it an unsupportable & unlikely claim that all MRAs are anti-feminist. That would make as much sense as saying all feminists are man haters.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You mean like how feminists attempt to address problems white women have?

But yes. I suppose people like Colin Powell (on so many levels but in this case) when they oppose portions of affirmative action for its detremental effects to non-minorities. Yes: I would also attempt to bring attention to and resolution of problems which affect white people specifically; much as I do for problems specific to black people, men, women, Hispanics, native Americans, etc.

But do you? You say it like you would sign a petition if you were on the side of the street and were asked. I mean do you actively look into advancing the issues affecting Caucasian individuals?

The general answer is no. The reason being that Caucasians are still the ones that benefit the most from the racial dynamic of our current society. We cannot rectify inequality but we can attempt to rectify it. In these attempts there are misguided and ineffective actions taken. But I cannot honestly say that as a Caucasian individual there is any racial dynamic that I need to change. I take issue with certain actions such as diversity allowances that attempt to make universities at least "x%" a minority which then causes a lot of unfair prejudice in how difficult it is to get into said universities. But I am not attempting to right a wrong against white individuals. I am pointing out that this is an ineffective way to assist the African American and other minority demographics.

So your assertion is that, thus far, groups calling themselves by the title "men's rights" have been ineffective at political change?

I've got no opinion on that except to say "so what? I didn't think the topic was even remotely related to effecay of the organization itself. I thought we were discussing a Jezebel article and what it said".

My assurtion is that the vast majority of groups that have gotten things done have not been MRA groups. The groups that are effective are typically focused on helping specific issues. MRA groups tend to trail off. In many specific cases it is because of misogynistic tendencies or specifically anti-feminist goals that are defeated. I'm sure not all. In fact I think some of the reason why many groups today are ineffective is because of the name it has gained from its past actions.

Which "feminist"? The one that says that men and women should have equal treatment, access, and opportunity? The one that says that there are issues generally effecting women which need to be addressed? I agree with that one.

They are one in the same.

Or is it the feminist that I read in that Jezebel article and its links? Is it the one that comes in my FB feed as Guerrilla Feminism? Is it the one with members who have said I was everything they hate because of my gender? The one tossing around (generally incorrectly) "mysogeny", "patriarchy", "male gaze", etc? I think you fail to acknowledge that one; while painting everyone discussing men's issues that way.

She is an extremist. She isn't the face of the movement and the only reason anyone pays attention to her has been because there is a lot of media attention given to her as a vice against feminism.

I am just as much against anit-men individuals as I am misogynistic men. As are the vast majority of feminists. See the problem here isn't that I am judging "men" or "men who support men's rights" but the fact that the MRA itself has a history of this nature.

The mens rights movement itself is considered to be a backlash against feminism. This isn't advancing men's rights this is simply resistance to change in the dynamic. Though I think there are spome points but I don't think that the coat of MRA can be worn with pride any longer.

Not to many of the people and groups operating under the "feminism" moniker.

Really? You and I will disagree on that one. There are any number of feminist specific organizations that currently work and function.

 

[Revoltingest]

The mens rights movement itself is considered to be a backlash against feminism.

Employing the passive voice to make a claim, eh? It raises questions....who is doing the considering, & is this claim valid or bogus?
When we see very real injustices perpetrated against people because they're male (even by many feminists), to dismiss such advocacy as mere "backlash against feminism" is a thinly veiled anti-male bias.

This isn't advancing men's rights this is simply resistance to change in the dynamic. Though I think there are spome points but I don't think that the coat of MRA can be worn with pride any longer.

I don't even see anyone here identifying as a MRA. No wonder, given that you & so many feminists work so fervently to portray them as misogynists.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Ok I'll ask again.

If MRA groups are being misrepresented, and Jezebel is just trolling the internet, can we get some positive examples of MRA groups in this thread? We need sources to compare and contrast.

JerryL, I swear this isn't a trap.

 

[JerryL]

But do you? You say it like you would sign a petition if you were on the side of the street and were asked. I mean do you actively look into advancing the issues affecting Caucasian individuals?

I've given white issues the same sorts of support I've given black issues, women's issues, men's issues, etc.

The general answer is no. The reason being that Caucasians are still the ones that benefit the most from the racial dynamic of our current society.

Therefore white femenists cannot actually have issues because black women have it worse?

And they cannot actually have issues, because black women in some other country have it worse than that?

It's a lie to say "only the person with the worst issues has legitimate issues"... and that's exactly what you are saying.

We cannot rectify inequality but we can attempt to rectify it. In these attempts there are misguided and ineffective actions taken. But I cannot honestly say that as a Caucasian individual there is any racial dynamic that I need to change. I take issue with certain actions such as diversity allowances that attempt to make universities at least "x%" a minority which then causes a lot of unfair prejudice in how difficult it is to get into said universities. But I am not attempting to right a wrong against white individuals. I am pointing out that this is an ineffective way to assist the African American and other minority demographics.

The discussion is men's issues (and feminists); not white issues. You asked a question claiming that it was for the purpose of comparison; but now you are straw-manning the topic.

Though yes: If you've been turned down for a job, scholarship, etc because you are white you are experiencing (within the context of that single event) the exact same racism that someone who's been turned down because they are Asian, or black, or whatever has experienced.

My assurtion is that the vast majority of groups that have gotten things done have not been MRA groups. The groups that are effective are typically focused on helping specific issues. MRA groups tend to trail off. In many specific cases it is because of misogynistic tendencies or specifically anti-feminist goals that are defeated. I'm sure not all. In fact I think some of the reason why many groups today are ineffective is because of the name it has gained from its past actions.

I just don't see how that interacts with the topic either.

They are one in the same.

I know that. Keep reading.

She is an extremist. She isn't the face of the movement and the only reason anyone pays attention to her has been because there is a lot of media attention given to her as a vice against feminism.

So "face of the movement" is the standard?!?

Like some of the faces of the movements illustrated here?

"If a male athies on YouTube goes too long without calling a woman a ****; his balls will actually shrivel up" - Rebecca Watson

I am just as much against anit-men individuals as I am misogynistic men. As are the vast majority of feminists. See the problem here isn't that I am judging "men" or "men who support men's rights" but the fact that the MRA itself has a history of this nature.

Re-read my posts and see if you are actually interacting with what I've said. You are not.

The mens rights movement itself is considered to be a backlash against feminism. This isn't advancing men's rights this is simply resistance to change in the dynamic. Though I think there are spome points but I don't think that the coat of MRA can be worn with pride any longer.

Re-read my posts and see if you are actually interacting with what I've said. You are not.

Really? You and I will disagree on that one. There are any number of feminist specific organizations that currently work and function.

That doesn't interact either with what you quoted nor what you said that I responded to. Please re-read your own post.

Your entire post seems rather derailed. Is this accidental or are you intentionally attempting a combination straw-man / bait-and-switch?

 

[JerryL]

Ok I'll ask again.

If MRA groups are being misrepresented, and Jezebel is just trolling the internet, can we get some positive examples of MRA groups in this thread? We need sources to compare and contrast.

JerryL, I swear this isn't a trap.

I really have no opinion on whether MRA groups are being mis-represented or not. I just don't pay enough attention to them or what others say about them.

What I do say is that there are some legitimate issues affecting men which are brought up by some members of these groups. What I do say is that there is a real problem with the behavior of many vocal, well known feminists... the details of which have already been pointed out.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Oh, you're being artful with this question! I support any group which seeks justice for its members....white, black, male, female, believer, heathen. I oppose them if they're sexist, racist or otherwise bigoted & nefarious. But you won't trick me into supporting white supremacists, you wascally wag!

Do you see a need for the advancement of white people group? Are there any major inequalities that you feel the society has brought to you specifically along the lines of your race (if you are white. I assume).

No...but isn't that the net effect of so many attacks upon the character of MRA activists?
(I never know whether "MRA" refers to mens rights activism, mens rights advocacy or men's rights activists. So you'll find my use of this initiallism inconsistent. Note that it is not an acronym. Dang.....I know how to digress!)

This is also an important note here. The MRA group was founded actually as a branch off of Feminism with a group of college students (males) studied feminism and started to use the same guidlines to analyze their own situation as men in society. This was back during the time of great social revolution in the 60's and 70's and the traditionally kept gender roles and family structure was being questioned. So now things that they had never really adressed before began to be adressed. The original group worked WITH feminists to drive towards equality for both men and women together. It was a great little happening at the time. From there it evolved into the men's liberation movement and then in then by the early 70's the Mens Rights Movement really kicked off and it was a counter or backlash against feminism as its main core. Through the 70's and 80's it has been known for its misogynistic tendencies of anti-feminism and usually under the guise of "family values" where many go so far as to state that women should stay at home. The basis for much of the argument was that you needed a woman at home to take care of the children but also because women working would mean that there would be less jobs out there for men. From there it has undergone a few different evolution depending on where it was in time and geographic location.

So when we talk about the MRA today which usually wants to see itself as independent from its history I find difficult. Mainly because so many people in these groups still are in line along the anti-feminist ideology. Many serious activists for mens rights have distanced themselves from the group specifically for this reason.

One can discourage advocacy without intending to. Who would want to identify as a MRA when hordes of feminists would fling poop at them? Something motivates the flinging....is it a sense of competition, feeling a threat, or misogyny? I find you social justice warriors inscrutable....why find conflict when your agendas are compatible & even the same?

I have already explained the reason why there is apprehention at best when dealing with the MRA. Looking at other groups with similar goals you don't see any backlash from feminist on a large scale. The reason is because what the group says they are and what they have historically done are different beasts all together. Feminists tend to have a problem with the MRA because of what they have done. They haven't ever been against frighting for men's rights and the Mens Liberation Movement (which spawned the Men's Rights Movement) was in coordination with feminists. Assisted by feminists and in many cases helped financially by feminist groups.

The issue isn't the issues. The Issue is the group in question, the MRA and the men's rights movement.

Is this lack of knowledge due to your comprehensive review of all MRA works, or just your personal inexperience with them?

The answer is both. The history isn't a difficult one as it isn't excessively expansive as feminism is. It runs along the track of a good idea that goes sour and is then fought by feminists and others who support equality.

To answer a question not from you but from the JerryL, it isn't that "men" are the ones that are only capable of being misogynists but it is the conservative ideology that has existed for tens of thousands of years that women have a "place" and men have "palce". The Patriarchy is strong and it has fought vigorously against feminists. One of the major outlets for patriarchy in society has been the MRA. This is sad since it started with such a sincere and important goal .

Perhaps the venue of your debates is less than the whole picture. I find it an unsupportable & unlikely claim that all MRAs are anti-feminist. That would make as much sense as saying all feminists are man haters.

I agree. I think that many MRA members have real concerns. I find that the ones that are very passionate about it are the ones that are most voacal and give them the worst name. Sort of like how people still believe feminists to be cock crushing ball busting man hating bittches. Its not true but there are a handful of individuals that have taken to the streets and screamed the loudest. The problem is that feminists have systematically gone through and isolated these individuals to remove them from the movement. MRA hasn't done that nearly enough partly because its membership is not large enough that they could ostracize many of its more conservative members by lashing out against the more outlandish speakers.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

My own personal experience (in short):

- I was invited to a local MRA group several years ago since I have been a more well-known feminist in the area. The invitation was sincere, as we both wanted the same things in regards to custodial rights, selective service, and domestic violence against men. When I arrived, the first thing I was met with by one of the members was "Feminism ****es me off!" Followed by an hour or so of other members wanting to vent about how much they hate feminism. When I listened and asked what can we accomplish together, the direction if their questions were targeted about how I should call feminists out. It was an unproductive meeting.
- I have received death threats by self-described MRA's and self-described egalitarians. Some of them have even threatened my family members. I keep the evidence on file in case there was any attempt.

I honestly want to work with Men's Rights groups because I have three sons and a husband I care deeply about. I'd like to do that without getting threatened or harassed repeatedly.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you see a need for the advancement of white people group? Are there any major inequalities that you feel the society has brought to you specifically along the lines of your race (if you are white. I assume).

I see occasional injustices against white folk. When I applied for job as a reactor operator at the University of Michiganistan Phoenix Memorial reactor, the head guy told me that he was under direct orders to hire only women & minorities. A state policy thingie. I saw this as unjust. That which is unjust, should be fought wherever it occurs. Would you oppose fighting injustice simply because a group seen as "privileged" would benefit?
Btw, I don't know of any groups advocating for white folk in particular whom I'd support at the moment. But I stand ready to support any cause I find deserving. Injustice isn't a problem because of which group it affects....it's a problem because a human being is adversely affected.

This is also an important note here. The MRA group was founded actually as a branch off of Feminism with a group of college students (males) studied feminism and started to use the same guidlines to analyze their own situation as men in society. This was back during the time of great social revolution in the 60's and 70's and the traditionally kept gender roles and family structure was being questioned. So now things that they had never really adressed before began to be adressed. The original group worked WITH feminists to drive towards equality for both men and women together. It was a great little happening at the time. From there it evolved into the men's liberation movement and then in then by the early 70's the Mens Rights Movement really kicked off and it was a counter or backlash against feminism as its main core.

Men's & women's advocates should be working in concert, since the goals mesh so well, & are often even the same.

Through the 70's and 80's it has been known for its misogynistic tendencies of anti-feminism and usually under the guise of "family values" where many go so far as to state that women should stay at home.

Passive voice again, eh? "It has been know" is to attribute the claim to no one in particular. This is just unfounded bashing.

The basis for much of the argument was that you needed a woman at home to take care of the children but also because women working would mean that there would be less jobs out there for men. From there it has undergone a few different evolution depending on where it was in time and geographic location.

Of all the guys I've known who had child custody problems due to their being the wrong gender, not one claimed "family values" or that the mother should stay home. It was about fair treatment in the courts. To make it about something else (such as anti-feminism) is deflection & deception.

So when we talk about the MRA today which usually wants to see itself as independent from its history I find difficult. Mainly because so many people in these groups still are in line along the anti-feminist ideology. Many serious activists for mens rights have distanced themselves from the group specifically for this reason.

When one takes one side in opposition to another side, it would be difficult to see merit in the opposition. Perhaps if your side were less hostile, these activists wouldn't see the need to distance themselves from their own advocacy, eh?

I have already explained the reason why there is apprehention at best when dealing with the MRA. Looking at other groups with similar goals you don't see any backlash from feminist on a large scale.

But we do see vocal opposition here on RF & elsewhere.

The reason is because what the group says they are and what they have historically done are different beasts all together. Feminists tend to have a problem with the MRA because of what they have done. They haven't ever been against frighting for men's rights and the Mens Liberation Movement (which spawned the Men's Rights Movement) was in coordination with feminists. Assisted by feminists and in many cases helped financially by feminist groups.
The issue isn't the issues. The Issue is the group in question, the MRA and the men's rights movement.

The issue to you is the group in question because that is the issue you & other hostile feminists have chosen to make. If instead you chose to be inclusive & seek detente, you'd see a change for the better.

The answer is both. The history isn't a difficult one as it isn't excessively expansive as feminism is. It runs along the track of a good idea that goes sour and is then fought by feminists and others who support equality.

To answer a question not from you but from the JerryL, it isn't that "men" are the ones that are only capable of being misogynists but it is the conservative ideology that has existed for tens of thousands of years that women have a "place" and men have "palce". The Patriarchy is strong and it has fought vigorously against feminists. One of the major outlets for patriarchy in society has been the MRA. This is sad since it started with such a sincere and important goal .

MRA is an outlet for patriarchy? This is mere vapid sloganeering. To fight for gender equity is not the same as seeking domination over the other gender.

I agree. I think that many MRA members have real concerns. I find that the ones that are very passionate about it are the ones that are most voacal and give them the worst name. Sort of like how people still believe feminists to be cock crushing ball busting man hating bittches.

There are lightning rods on both sides. You owe it to people to not let these people define everyone else, or to create hostility towards efforts to seek justice.

Its not true but there are a handful of individuals that have taken to the streets and screamed the loudest. The problem is that feminists have systematically gone through and isolated these individuals to remove them from the movement. MRA hasn't done that nearly enough partly because its membership is not large enough that they could ostracize many of its more conservative members by lashing out against the more outlandish speakers.

To now make about "conservatives" is ridiculous. The injustices faced by some men transcend political poles.

 

[JerryL]

My own personal experience (in short):

- I was invited to a local MRA group several years ago since I have been a more well-known feminist in the area. The invitation was sincere, as we both wanted the same things in regards to custodial rights, selective service, and domestic violence against men. When I arrived, the first thing I was met with by one of the members was "Feminism ****es me off!" Followed by an hour or so of other members wanting to vent about how much they hate feminism. When I listened and asked what can we accomplish together, the direction if their questions were targeted about how I should call feminists out. It was an unproductive meeting.

Sounds like my experience with Guerrilla Feminism.

- I have received death threats by self-described MRA's and self-described egalitarians. Some of them have even threatened my family members. I keep the evidence on file in case there was any attempt.

I've had that happen before on any number of causes. There is no justification for such activity, and the people who do so need to be in jail. That said: they are all over the place and in every group.

I honestly want to work with Men's Rights groups because I have three sons and a husband I care deeply about. I'd like to do that without getting threatened or harassed repeatedly.

Sounds like my experience with feminist groups (reach out to help: get called the epitome of everything they hate if I disagree with even one point, most of what they did was complain about men). Unlike you though, I've kind-of given up on the groups. So I will gladly work with anyone on a cause I support; and I will support things that I think are good; but I don't get behind any group (men's, women's, other) because of so many of their members.

Please believe that I've had even more conversations attempting to explain what legit grievances women have than I have for men; but the entire dialog has been poisoned and, from where I sit, it was avowed feminist advocates that have done most of that poisoning.

I have a young daughter. I am very concerned about whether she will have the opportunity to be whom she wants to be or whether pressure to conform to a gender role will interfere (it's entirely possible that who she wants to be will conform to a gender role...but *she* needs to make that choice; not me, not her teachers, not society). I no way am I dismissive of the real issues women face and I stand in support of doing what should be done to allow people of all genders not to be viewed through gender-normative roles (I've a number of friends in the transsexual community as well; so I actually have a more broad exposure than just "men and women").

But...

Some people on *all* sides of the issue are making the conversation toxic.
Some people on all sides of the issue are lying.
An honest conversation generally because very partisan very quickly.

If it's any consolation I'm in the same boat in most political debates; being strongly opinionated but not being completely liberal nor conservative... most people simply conclude I am whichever group they are not.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Sounds like my experience with Guerrilla Feminism.

Dang, that's an aggressive group. I checked them out before, and while I may admire the drive, the "in your face" tactic is more confrontational. I prefer education.

I've had that happen before on any number of causes. There is no justification for such activity, and the people who do so need to be in jail. That said: they are all over the place and in every group.

Sure. Context, however, is important. I am concerned over getting death threats from the dominant culture (Christians in my area) were they to discover my orientation. I am not concerned about getting death threats from atheists. The reason is after years of conversations, and listening to their reactions to those who have different goals than them.

I am also not concerned about getting death threats from trans rights groups, though I have been "called out" for cis privilege due to my not understanding of what trans people experience.

And as much as I disagree with RadFems, and how many of them are more separatist by nature and dismiss the experience of people who are trans or non-binary in gender, I am not concerned about death threats in spite of the conversations we've had.

I think overall we may experience the same in regards to the aggressiveness, but there are some nuances that seem different in terms of personal safety concerns.

Sounds like my experience with feminist groups (reach out to help: get called the epitome of everything they hate if I disagree with even one point, most of what they did was complain about men). Unlike you though, I've kind-of given up on the groups. So I will gladly work with anyone on a cause I support; and I will support things that I think are good; but I don't get behind any group (men's, women's, other) because of so many of their members.

That's cool.

Please believe that I've had even more conversations attempting to explain what legit grievances women have than I have for men; but the entire dialog has been poisoned and, from where I sit, it was avowed feminist advocates that have done most of that poisoning.

I have a young daughter. I am very concerned about whether she will have the opportunity to be whom she wants to be or whether pressure to conform to a gender role will interfere (it's entirely possible that who she wants to be will conform to a gender role...but *she* needs to make that choice; not me, not her teachers, not society). I no way am I dismissive of the real issues women face and I stand in support of doing what should be done to allow people of all genders not to be viewed through gender-normative roles (I've a number of friends in the transsexual community as well; so I actually have a more broad exposure than just "men and women").

I have a daughter too, and I share the same views.

But...

Some people on *all* sides of the issue are making the conversation toxic.
Some people on all sides of the issue are lying.
An honest conversation generally because very partisan very quickly.

If it's any consolation I'm in the same boat in most political debates; being strongly opinionated but not being completely liberal nor conservative... most people simply conclude I am whichever group they are not.

Yeah, same here. I tend to be groomed by Liberals, Conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Church of the Sub-Genius, you name it.

But in the end, I guess I tick everyone off because I say words like "privilege" while also like reading Fifty Shades of Grey, having lots of sex with people, and how I really love making as much money as possible. I'm an anti-male ball-busting rape apologist whore corporate-capitalist pig.

Still a feminist, though.

 

[JerryL]

Sure. Context, however, is important.

Of course. With only one-or-two exceptions the threats against me over the years have been ignoble. Three were, however, those exceptions.

But in the end, I guess I tick everyone off because I say words like "privilege"

A real thing that's almost entirely mis-understood by people on both sides of the fence.

while also like reading Fifty Shades of Grey

I say this as a BDSM Dom with a solid background in literature. That book is garbage and promotes an abusive relationship (that said: It may be to sex what Rambo II is to violence and, if viewed as pure fantasy as opposed to "I should go to Vietnam and kill people like he did" not harmful and (if it weren't so poorly penned) titilating.)

having lots of sex with people

Florida is a great spot for a winter vacation. Kids love Disney and it has an excellent babysitter service.

and how I really love making as much money as possible.

You like that too?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Of course. With only one-or-two exceptions the threats against me over the years have been ignoble. Three were, however, those exceptions.


A real thing that's almost entirely mis-understood by people on both sides of the fence.

I'd like to have that conversation with you sometime. Perhaps a one-on-one discussion?

I say this as a BDSM Dom with a solid background in literature. That book is garbage and promotes an abusive relationship (that said: It may be to sex what Rambo II is to violence and, if viewed as pure fantasy as opposed to "I should go to Vietnam and kill people like he did" not harmful and (if it weren't so poorly penned) titilating.)

See, I'm a domme, and was thrilled that BDSM had something going into mainstream. I didn't see it as promoting anything except a really really really guilty pleasure for a LOT of women. The great thing that book series did was bring the kink out of the closet.

And, fwiw, as a professional dancer I enjoy the pure fun idiocy of Gangnam Style as much as I do the perfection of the Pas de Quatre in Swan Lake. Our studio dancers even got in on the silliness of the viral video craze of the Harlem Shake and Ylvis' "What Does the Fox Say?"

I don't turn my nose up at something just because it's stupid.

Florida is a great spot for a winter vacation. Kids love Disney and it has an excellent babysitter service.

I am actually tired of Florida. I've traveled there so many times, the tourist traps actually get old, unfortunately. Though, I'll always have the Tower of Terror at MGM Studios.

You like that too?

Kind of like how I was surprised how much I like sex. I have as much as possible in and out of the marriage. That ticks off the conservatives but the liberals love me for it. I also really really like making money. Sometimes I like to look in the bank account just to see the balance and the cash flow that comes in and goes out. Conservatives love my business drive and call me as an entrepreneur the "backbone" of our economy, but the liberals get ticked off when I admit how much I really like it.

It seems that I really shouldn't enjoy some things all that much. Sex, profit margins, or bad music and literature. But I do. Life goes on. *shrug*

 

[JerryL]

I'd like to have that conversation with you sometime. Perhaps a one-on-one discussion?

Sounds like a good way to spend time.

See, I'm a domme, and was thrilled that BDSM had something going into mainstream. I didn't see it as promoting anything except a really really really guilty pleasure for a LOT of women. The great thing that book series did was bring the kink out of the closet.

That's my fear though. Gray is an abused child who is now, like so many, abusing others. He's not a dom (he abandons sadism and bondage once he's exorcised his demons), and he's a manipulative abuser.

I'm sorry that much better stories, like "The Secretary" didn't manage this level of popularity. The BDSM community is universally portrayed as either insane or evil in popular culture.

And, fwiw, as a professional dancer I enjoy the pure fun idiocy of Gangnam Style as much as I do the perfection of the Pas de Quatre in Swan Lake. Our studio dancers even got in on the silliness of the viral video craze of the Harlem Shake and Ylvis' "What Does the Fox Say?"

Literature need not be deep; but it should be well done... or so badly done it's well done.

I don't enjoy "Snakes on a Plane" or Mel Gibson's Jesus movie (forget the name oddly) because, bluntly, they are bad. I did enjoy "Kung Pow: Enter the fist" and the first "Starship Troopers" and old Godzilla flics. (Sorry: I don't like "Sharknado")

I am actually tired of Florida. I've traveled there so many times, the tourist traps actually get old, unfortunately. Though, I'll always have the Tower of Terror at MGM Studios.

How about Manhattan?

It seems that I really shouldn't enjoy some things all that much. Sex, profit margins, or bad music and literature. But I do. Life goes on. *shrug*

Enjoy what you enjoy. My real complaint with 50 shades isn't that it's bad (though it is), nor that people falsely claim it's good (as it is not); but that it confligrates SM and abuse and perpetuates a rather bad stereotype for relationships that women in particular already have a reputation for seeking out.

Girls Logic One Can't Understand

 

[suncowiam]

Why don't we just combine all the rights advocate group into one?

Change the wording of your slogans and replace your group with "EVERYONE" or "ALL."

Just have one goal: "Equality for ALL!"

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Sounds like a good way to spend time.

Cool beans.

That's my fear though. Gray is an abused child who is now, like so many, abusing others. He's not a dom (he abandons sadism and bondage once he's exorcised his demons), and he's a manipulative abuser.

I'm sorry that much better stories, like "The Secretary" didn't manage this level of popularity. The BDSM community is universally portrayed as either insane or evil in popular culture.

With education, I think, we can show how ethical domination-submission relationships are. The popularity ofFifty Shades has brought out numerous people in the kink community spreading information about BDSM.

Literature need not be deep; but it should be well done... or so badly done it's well done.

I don't enjoy "Snakes on a Plane" or Mel Gibson's Jesus movie (forget the name oddly) because, bluntly, they are bad. I did enjoy "Kung Pow: Enter the fist" and the first "Starship Troopers" and old Godzilla flics. (Sorry: I don't like "Sharknado")

No problem.

How about Manhattan?

Definitely. I miss NYC. Used to live there.

Enjoy what you enjoy. My real complaint with 50 shades isn't that it's bad (though it is), nor that people falsely claim it's good (as it is not); but that it confligrates SM and abuse and perpetuates a rather bad stereotype for relationships that women in particular already have a reputation for seeking out.

Girls Logic One Can't Understand

Oh yeah. The whole "nice guys finish last" myth and the stereotype that women only go for the abusive men more often? That's a conversation in and of itself that is super complex as it involves culturally conditioned gender roles for both men and women.

BTW the link was funny.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I see occasional injustices against white folk. When I applied for job as a reactor operator at the University of Michiganistan Phoenix Memorial reactor, the head guy told me that he was under direct orders to hire only women & minorities. A state policy thingie. I saw this as unjust. That which is unjust, should be fought wherever it occurs. Would you oppose fighting injustice simply because a group seen as "privileged" would benefit?
Btw, I don't know of any groups advocating for white folk in particular whom I'd support at the moment. But I stand ready to support any cause I find deserving. Injustice isn't a problem because of which group it affects....it's a problem because a human being is adversely affected.

I will repeat something that I have stated earlier. We cannot rectify injustice. We can only attempt to rectify it in a haphazard way. If there is a discriminatory tendency towards minorities and women there has been an incentive in place to attempt to get businesses to rectify that unequal hiring trend. Now we have a law that will unjustly affect certain male or white individuals. However the policy was created to deal with the statistics as a whole rather than on the individual level. So we are faced with a problem. Do we let injustice on a large statistical scale go on? Or do we suffer individual discrimination on a case by case basis to better the statistics as a whole? I don't like it either but unfortunately that tends to be the only choices we have.

Men's & women's advocates should be working in concert, since the goals mesh so well, & are often even the same.

And many do. MRA has intentionally gone counter to feminism as well as other similar groups. Its my main problem with it. Had it just been for men's rights it would have been perfectly fine and I would probably be a member. However the situation has changed in dynamic to be a counter-movement to feminism with an attempt to undermine feminist goals rather than advance masculine goals.

Passive voice again, eh? "It has been know" is to attribute the claim to no one in particular. This is just unfounded bashing.

Sure sure. Lets go with that.

Of all the guys I've known who had child custody problems due to their being the wrong gender, not one claimed "family values" or that the mother should stay home. It was about fair treatment in the courts. To make it about something else (such as anti-feminism) is deflection & deception.

Which is why the father's rights groups were so much more effective than the MRA. Weird how that comes right out.

When one takes one side in opposition to another side, it would be difficult to see merit in the opposition. Perhaps if your side were less hostile, these activists wouldn't see the need to distance themselves from their own advocacy, eh?

Now who is baseless?

But we do see vocal opposition here on RF & elsewhere.

Opposition to what exactly?

The issue to you is the group in question because that is the issue you & other hostile feminists have chosen to make. If instead you chose to be inclusive & seek detente, you'd see a change for the better.

I'm a hostile feminist? And I get the feeling you don't know many feminists.

MRA is an outlet for patriarchy? This is mere vapid sloganeering. To fight for gender equity is not the same as seeking domination over the other gender.

What you aren't getting is that the history of the MRA as an organization does not match its platform. Its much like republicans or democrats in that reguard. If they did what they said I might like them.

There are lightning rods on both sides. You owe it to people to not let these people define everyone else, or to create hostility towards efforts to seek justice.

I have not seen a self filtering on the MRA. If you have please link me to that information.

To now make about "conservatives" is ridiculous. The injustices faced by some men transcend political poles.

You and Jerry are making the same mistakes. What exactly do you think my position on MENS RIGHTS are? Tell me that and this will tell me if you are absorbing what I am saying or jumping the gun.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I've given white issues the same sorts of support I've given black issues, women's issues, men's issues, etc.

What white issue have you given support to recently?

Therefore white femenists cannot actually have issues because black women have it worse?

And they cannot actually have issues, because black women in some other country have it worse than that?

It's a lie to say "only the person with the worst issues has legitimate issues"... and that's exactly what you are saying.

I would like a quote for me where I said this. I have a feeling its far more you reading into it. You have taken my criticism of the MRA personally. If you don't like it then its tough ****. The causes are legitimate and I have stated that several times. The fact that you seem to be caught on the fact I don't like the MRA as an organization has blinded you to anything I have actually said. I have hope that the rest of your response will be far more coherent.

The discussion is men's issues (and feminists); not white issues. You asked a question claiming that it was for the purpose of comparison; but now you are straw-manning the topic.

I was bringing up an example of how we have observably different levels of difficulty. It doesn't make the issues any less legitimate but it brings up to the point where I wanted to discuss from. There is no large scale problems with men in society as there were and tends to be with women.

I think we should address these issues. I have never stated otherwise. This was actually a tangent that was brought out between me and revolutionist about the writing off of men's issues. It was never a justification.

Though yes: If you've been turned down for a job, scholarship, etc because you are white you are experiencing (within the context of that single event) the exact same racism that someone who's been turned down because they are Asian, or black, or whatever has experienced.

I can honestly say as a white male it has never hindered me and I doubt it has really ever hindered anyone else. There may be specific instances and that should be addressed. However in our society there is no statistical disadvantage for being white or male in terms of finding jobs. In fact I have worked in areas that were predominately women and I still managed to get hired.

I just don't see how that interacts with the topic either.

Its incredibly important to what my position is. I support men's rights. I do not support Men's rights Activists. (notice the capitals)

So "face of the movement" is the standard?!?

Like some of the faces of the movements illustrated here?

"If a male athies on YouTube goes too long without calling a woman a ****; his balls will actually shrivel up" - Rebecca Watson

Do you seriously think this is the work of the average femnist? Has this actually brought any laws to pass? For the record I disagree with the way that these women have done this protest. I don't think they need to protest MRA groups.

I would like to know the reason why they protested the MRA group. If the MRA group had already had previous misogynistic protests of some kind or if it was just blind hatred towards men. I don't know. I don't think it was appropriate either.

Re-read my posts and see if you are actually interacting with what I've said. You are not.


Re-read my posts and see if you are actually interacting with what I've said. You are not.


That doesn't interact either with what you quoted nor what you said that I responded to. Please re-read your own post.

Your entire post seems rather derailed. Is this accidental or are you intentionally attempting a combination straw-man / bait-and-switch?

I have responded with exactly what I mean to say. The MRA is an organization. It isn't some hazy movement of loose nit individuals who all speak for peace and love. There is real damage caused by the organization and you were misunderstanding exactly what I was saying. And the fact that I continued to describe my position and now you think I've pulled some kind of bait and switch makes it apparent to me that there has been a miscommunication for several posts now.