Are MRAs always angry?

Post Reply New Topic

^^^^^^^^^^^^ Where did you find anger in that?

That's way more delicate than I'd be if I were talking about the same issues with other men.

Or do you expect me to whisper tender little nothings in your ear because you're a girl?

i'm not a girl--i'm a woman. i don't need your "delicacy", i prefer honesty.

and honestly, yes, you sound angry at women (not just from this post).

I think the point is they are conflating genuine men's issues with resentful blow back. It is more about having a problem with women's lib, or empowerment, but they will try to legitimize it by mixing in some genuine issues.

Feminism is not one thing, and not all feminists agree.

Women's right isn't mutually exclusive to men's right. We live in a age where we have a lot of freedom, but both sexes can be in specific situations were there is inequality, and injustice. However we need to get over this whole nonsense of "overall fairness" which is unquantifiable. The point is anyone for any reason can can be discriminated against, also not all differnce warrants special case civil rights status. We as humans are preferential beings, and this in itself is right. However there a broad common sense objectives of equality that would be beneficial to a society.

Also I can agree with the main aims of many feminists, but can disagree how to get there with some. I don't like anything that amounts to censorship, or set mode of living is fair game. But most of that went out in the 80s anyway.

I am not politically correct, and I also think people should be intent not just thought or words or even sexual stereotypes in humour. If people feel like they are treading on eggshells, I don't think this is good advocacy.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 12 Apr 2014, 4:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It can also be that they are angry because they have personal grievances, which lead them to make broad and extreme generalizations. But this can be true of some feminist groups too. But there is lack of prominent moderate men's right groups.

There have been issues with the law, father rights was an issue that has come up. There was an on fashion view of women's in childcare law, if anything this is the antithesis of any reasonable feminist position.

On the other hand some parents act appallingly in the case or relationship break down. I disagree with the concept legal marriage (not cultural or religious), so naturally I don't have a high opinion of the divorce process, which seems to encourage conflict, and makes the lawyers wealthy.

You would know.

And yet you lumped all men throughout history together:



I rebuted your position with data. You've responded to none of it.



...you said in a transparent attempt to devalue others.

We should rename this thread "Are feminists always angry, take-two."

That's been a problem here. The reason that I mentioned some things that broke the other way is to try to tease out the difference between systematic descrimination and the patchy imperfection of life. One other board member refered to that as 'whataboutism'. My response is that you can't make an overall qualitative case without looking at all of that data.



That may be true in England. The US in more like post-imperial, pre-Thacher England. We have a lot of policies that do force a way of living, and it's not gender neutral. For example, our government considers cheap consumer goods to be a right. The policies that promote that (imports) have put a lot of men out of work.

Class class class class class class class class class class class class.

Because feminists can point at the hardship of women through history and how it was at the hands of men, how it was in men's interests, so MRAs try to look at the hardship of men through history and assume it must run the other way, that it was at the hands of women and in women's interests.

No no no. Class interest is a far, far better, more useful lens to look through.

Similarly, if we assume feminism means women getting to do whatever men do, well, that's kind of a start, but all-else-being-equal will just reinforce a whole lot of stuff, not least men and masculinity as the standard, the 'norm'. Far better to do a more thorough analysis of the problem(s).

I think threads like this mostly results in two extremes making broad generalizations of one another.

I degree with the notion there are no men's issues that need to be addressed. I just don't think that these MRA groups are all that objective.

I also degree that they are no issues with white people being discriminated against. If white people subjugate another colour, that is wrong, but that doesn't mean, they can't also be subjugated. It is discriminatory to say becuase they are viewed as the subjugator, that this label should stick and count against basic rights. Of course I'm not meaning this to apply to just "white" people. the whole notion of color, and race from a scientific classification is quite weak.

The whole issue of equality need to be addressed as a society, rather than pitting one against group the other.

I genuinely believe that most people who are educated an group up with broad experience, don't set out to be bigots (or I give the benefit of the doubt). Some of the problems are more subtle.

I'm classical liberal/libertarian on this issue, so you won't get much sympathy to me.

They may put women out of work too, I fail to see the relevance to this thread.

However I don't think trade is bad, even cheap imports have their place. Just like trade protectionism isn't what it is cracked up to be.

People want their cake an eat it too.

Study the history of industrial revolutions. As soon as you get a higher standard of living, and wage inflation, heavy industry starts to decline. Even in China this is happening now, it is just got a way to go.

I could give two s**ts what someone background is if they do a goo job they are OK by me.

I think the problem is people are attributing 'human rights' to things that aren't really rights or at least not 'fundmantal rights'. This symptomatic of society where people can effectively air their grievances.

I'm thinking of Bastiat, who was very good at working with whole-system problems. That's what I'm trying to do here.



In East Asia that would be true, but not in the US.

Our trade laws expose market segments that are male-dominated while protecting ones that are female dominated. I'm OK with overall free trade, or more limited trade that doesn't have a slant. There's nothing libertarian about getting your cheap loot from the PRC. It's also empowering to the state at the expense of the population when officials can use trade laws to punish a voting bloc that opposed them while rewarding another.

That sort of policy is rhetorically libertarian, but realistically subjugable.

i agree with you, hopper--but for some the divide is perceived as between men and women and always will be because they can't see life in any other way except through the lens of that particular binary black-and-white interpretation. class systems have always been the most ubiquitous tool for the oppression of one large group by a select small group because it's really the only effective way to arrange such a system; and sexism simply contributes to that over-arching class-based oppression, in that it helps to keep a good chunk of that larger group in check in the same way that political apathy aids those who sit atop a class-based system because it prevents activism and change amongst the general populace. but that's too "big picture" for those who have a personal/emotional investment in other (usually reductive and distorted) explanations for why the human sphere is so inequitable.

the foundation of the inequity is that some people are convinced they are better and are worth more than others, and because of this innate superiority they deserve to possess the majority of wealth and power--every manifestation of inequity stems from this premise. the reason they think they are better--whether it's because they are men, or because they are white, or they are of european descent, or they are christian, etc etc etc--is almost irrelevant: the problem is they think they are better than some other group of humans.

When the feminist movement began, it made sense. Women were doing something different than usual by fighting back against patriarchy (you can debate the existence of patriarchy if you want). Whatever, in any case, they were moving forward, doing something different. It made sense. They wanted rights they didn't have and the best alternative was to actively resist.

Men fighting for more rights is just more of the same - let's fight fight fight for our rights! Let's keep on fighting! Men have been fighting for all of history and MRA continues to do it. "Let's tear down feminism!" Alright I'm talking about the extremists (who actually say much much worse than this) But in any case, It's not new, it's not original. It's backwards.

I think men would be better off joining the feminist movement and trying to influence them by educating women about men's problems. Then perhaps a new movement could be created that better encompassed both men and women. Call it the person movement or something. We probably have such a thing already.

As for war, yes, it's terrible that so many men have died in war, but couldn't one attribute this to the "patriarchy" that feminism is trying to fight? I'm not overly aware of the terminology so I could be wrong here. It's just from a common sense point of view as an outsider who mostly spends my days alone not socializing much, I read this stuff on the internet and it just seems really weird to me.

I already gave you examples that don't fit your summation. Here's one:

"While US women were exempt from the three major drafts that have occurred since the 19th Amendment, they've had equal say in decisions that led to the deaths of tens of thousands of men, including the Washington Naval Treaty."

That's an example of women in the "bad old days" having power over men, without the liability. That's a pretty sweet gig.

"My German ancestors came to America to escape the Prussian draft, from which the girls were exempted. It had been used as a population control measure at least since Machiavelli's time (i.e. killing off half of the young men every few decades)."

That was a simple matter of killing somebody. It didn't have to be men. If you want to be cynical, killing women would be the more effective population control measure, since they're the reproductive bottleneck.

Further, as I've said to you already, the old system wasn't in men's interests:

"It's easy to tell from people's career choices that most {both genders} will choose security over liberty when they have to pick one. In fact, most people won't even bear the non-life-threatening risks of self-employment in a first world country."

Unless men have evolved a lot in the last 100 years, history doesn't support you. Men worked in jobs that they woudn't choose if they had the option.

Do you really think that men woke up in the morning for the last three thousand years and said "How can I torture my wife and kids today?" Do you really think that they got to make decisions based on what felt good?

As far as your argument that it's about class, you'd have to apply that consistently. The lady of the house in a wealthy family had a bigger budget than a lot of male corporate administrators do today. She also had male servants who had to take orders from her.

I've also brought up more recent things, for example that I have no right to 'choose'.

Earlier you picked something that I didn't say, then turned it into a straw man:



What I said:



People can be beaten down by:

a) events
b) their own self-discipline
c) other people

If you or other feminists only think about the third, that's as illuminating of what you haven't faced as it is of what you have.

And yes, the thrid plays a role as well. I did an experiment a while ago. I was in a clinic waiting room when a woman walked in and strode up to the desk. She had the sort of affected, prancing gait that you see in actresses or runway models. When she got to the desk, she flicked her neck to one side to toss her long, blond hair out of the way. Her problem? Back pain. Now I'm not one to judge. I thought to myself "Well, maybe she'd sleep better if even a minor ache was taken care of." For that matter, maybe I'd sleep better if I had that level of pampering.

I'm utterly shameless, so I did an experiment. Starting with that visit, I tried being less stoic and asking for help with quibbling little things. And while I didn't detect even the slightest lack of respect or insincerity in the staff who spoke to that lady, I got some major eye-rolls and similar treatment. More importantly, I didn't get any other results from asking nicely.

So Re: your skeptical remarks about "men [who] haven't dared to complain lest they be physically and verbally assaulted," yes, if I ask for the same benefits of society that a girl here can expect - which I've already paid for, by the way - I can not only be treated badly in the verbal and social senses, but also given poorer medical care, and any number of other things.

You talk about male privilege. There's also the female kind. You talk about banning bossy; why not ban 'whiny?'

If your best chance at seeming attractively masculine is to mimic sticking up for girls when they're not really disadvantaged, then you must still have a lot to prove. I don't. I've been there for my Somali friends, including on their tough days. Those are women who really have faced hardship. I can solve tough technical problems without any prior training just by looking at them and imagining what might work. I can ride 130+ miles of hard intervals and hill sprints in a day.

So I really don't appreciate feminists playing that card, as you have above. Next time you or another feminist would like to make that accusation stick, come and spend a week with me. You will leave very tired.

Last edited by NobodyKnows on 12 Apr 2014, 7:12 pm, edited 4 times in total.

i fail to see how one person's suffering is more "real" than another's--the whole "my pain is more relevant than yours" or "my suffering is worse than your suffering" argument doesn't make any sense to me at all. women suffer all around the world--as do men and children--not just in somalia, so what is your point exactly?

You have not listed a single thing which was brought about by women to benefit women. You have listed war, which will have benefited a select group of powerful, wealthy people (the power and wealth mostly belonging to men). I presume women would have not been seen to be fit, competent fighters apart from anything else. This is the fallacy of the MRA. They are so fixated on blaming feminists and/or women, they can't see any other analysis.

MRAs are against circumcision - great, but circumcision is not a feminist conspiracy. starvingartist and Misslizard have given their opinions, and I have yet to read a feminist drum-banging for the practice. They may not spend a lot of time talking about it, but why would they? It is, unfortunately, seen as such a normal thing that it can be hard to see it for what it is. It is not a stubborn feminist blind spot whilst all non-feminists are fervently against it, ffs.

If you could click your fingers right now and remove feminism from history, and circumcision would still exist. It would still go on. You say some feminists have approved of its use as a means of suppressing transferrence of HIV to women. I've never seen this, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You know who else has approved of such, who has much more sway and power in this matter? Doctors.

If you can't advocate - self or otherwise - against male circumcision without getting in an attack on feminism, you really need to reassess your priorities.

Sometimes people play the cards that are played against them every day.

You don't have a right to choose because it's not your body.

I wouldn't have a clue how to seem 'attractively masculine'. I just stand up for what I believe.

Bold - are you trying to convince me or yourself?

Yep. Calm as f**k and no resentment whatsoever.