Are MRAs always angry?

Post Reply New Topic

Wait, what do her long blonde hair and her gait have to do with anything? And you have no idea how bad her back pain was.

'Similarly, if we assume feminism means women getting to do whatever men do, {minus what they don't want to do...}'

That's the problem. If I said that I wanted to take care of kids, only to disappear at the first smelly diaper or tantrum, no girl should respect me. Actually, I've done the opposite. I was willing to learn those skills in my mid-20s, an age at which a lot of the urban girls that I knew were still squeamish about responsibility. I was downright good at keeping fiesty three-year-olds on good behavior, with almost exclusively positive methods.

I've also worked in a factory, in a lonely laboratory, at trade shows, and as an unrespected volunteer coordinator who had to figure out how to make them want to show up. In East Asia, half of the people in the jobs that I've worked might be women.

I'm a better cook than most of the girls that I know. I'm a much better baker. My apartment is cleaner. I take better care of my health. My friends are more fun. When I think about dating again, I wonder "What is she going to do to carry the relationship?"

Well said.

I do wonder what the overlap is between MRA and certain white populations who have taken to calling themselves 'indiginous' when complaining about immigration. Appropriating the language of the oppressed - classy stuff.

Any feminists I've come across have very well understood the necessity of wider, nuanced analysis. MRAs just have the one-note response, assuming all else is fixed, and the only variable is gender roles/dynamics.

Actually, my feminist mother would deny work-comp to any patient who did that. It's just physics and biomechanics. (The length detemines the moment of inertia, hence the torque on the spine needed to flick your neck hard enough to toss it over. Maintaining that gait puts side-loads on the entire spine.)

More often she nails guys who don't have trouble opening the stiffly-sprung doors in the clinic. (That also puts a lot of load on your spine.)

The whole spine? I'm flicking my hair right now and it doesn't seem to be affecting my lower back at all: which, I will note, has been going into painful spasms all week because of walking around on shoes at 2 different heights.

Two keywords: gravity, leverage

The lower parts of your body bear everything above them. They bear side-loads at a pronounced mechanical disadvantage.

Spasms = muscular system = different issue

Responding to your edit.

I usually start with class analysis. It's an analysis bound up with considerations of sexism and racism etc, and there are many cases where such things will bear the emphasis of my consideration, but I'm always aware of wider matters. 'Intersectionality' is the present term, and it's a helpful way of thinking about things. I don't know how things can make much sense outside of such thinking. It's why MRAs constantly come unstuck.

Class is about wealth and power. Thinking of it in terms of the 'lady of the house' won't get us very far. Compared to the male corporate administrator (and their collective psyche), she has far less influence.

Did you see that video the other day, going on and on about a woman's ignorance of all men do? That was so obviously, painfully, a disavowed class matter, not gender. You could run the same thing with a white collar corporate middle class man, similarly cliched that he doesn't know or recognise the work of the blue collar men. But who talks about class? Only losers, surely?

Men worked in jobs they would have preferred not to - still do. They had to do so because they could only get by selling their labour. That's capitalism. Same with women. Women worked the jobs they were allowed to. Always have. There were many jobs they simply would not have been accepted into. When they tried to enter into highly 'masculine' work, they faced a barrage of hostility and sexism. A few decades later, some idiots used the paucity of women in such jobs to attack women. Remarkable.

No, I don't think most men for the last few millenia woke up thinking such a thing. Doesn't mean they didn't think and act in sexist, misogynist ways, though. Doesn't mean women haven't been seen and treated as lessers. Men held power, and set the laws to reflect such.

Wouldn't you do better putting this on your OKCupid profile?

Genuinely, I don't know what this is supposed to be about, or prove. You're a great catch? You're a better 'woman' than actual women you know?

Do I really need to spell out the feminist complaints that those are responses to?

Girls complained that guys didn't do enough around the house; that we didn't help enough with the kids; that we ducked work (like changing diapers).

I'm saying: I learned those things because I thought that it was fair. I thought that I should know how to do them.

Having tried both sets of roles, I don't see guys who duck domestic work as any worse than the girls who won't take a factory job even when it pays well. (A surprising number of them did pay well until recently because in the US it was hard to get anyone who was smart enough and willing to do them.)

Perhaps if you say it enough times, it will be true.



How much history do you read, and to whom do you refer? Napoleon? Tojo? Queen Elizabeth? Maria Teresia? Empress Dowager Cixi? Catherine the Great? Zoe Porphyrogenita?

Yeah, it could only be a vast male conspiracy... If you can only think of one reason that someone might not pursue high office, I'll offer another: http://myfishsauce.blogspot.com/2007/01 ... -tojo.html

I've heard that women are kept out of political office in the US, but I've also heard that when they run, they win at a slightly higher rate than the men.



The typical corporate administrator has to answer to at least two or three higher tiers of management. These are not especially forgiving. Even the executive officers answer to shareholders and regulators. The historical lady of the house is a fair comparison.



When did I narrow the debate to something so utterly convenient for you?

I listed things that were unequal. I also listed similar abuses of both men and women, done for the same reasons. A young girl was married off for the same reason that a young boy was apprenticed off: people had too many kids, and often couldn't feed them all. Should they both have been left on a hillside to starve instead?

For your part, you have not listed a single example of men harming women purely for their own enjoyment, or out of a lust for power. Where you could list abuses by men, you will not be able to prove that they represent men as a whole. You will not be able to show that women behaved better when they were in power (see above).

I will not participate in a debate in which I have to prove malevolent intent beyond a doubt, while you hide behind the assumption of it.



By your standard, why would a gentleman architect spend time thinking about how many ladies bathrooms a building should be built with? Or a manager or policy-maker fret over the correct amount of maternity leave.

It's hypocritical to be up-in-arms about one thing while letting another just like it go on in plain view. If you're bigoted enough to excuse that by saying that it's a 'male problem,' then you've opened the door for people who would write off inner city gun deaths as a 'black problem' in areas where most are killed by other blacks. Do you really want to do that?



You've highlighted what I added after more sensitive examples. The precedence answers your question. What stands out about those Somali women is that they really have stood up on their own, in spite of what they were brought up under. They would not have the slightest need for a sycophant such as yourself.

Last edited by NobodyKnows on 12 Apr 2014, 11:39 pm, edited 4 times in total.

The MRA are getting angry.....I guess they are always angry!

The MRA is in fact getting sleepy

But not too sleepy to be impressed by the power of your logic. I will do my humble best to emulate it whenever it is convenient.

My curiosity and urge to get into mischief get the best of me! I am indeed equal opportunity get some rest for tommorow will be a brand new day!

Sorry if I've missed something in your prior posts, but couldn't her back pain have been muscular?

I see scant evidence of what you are talking about. Many people who claim to be libertarian actually aren't they just want to differentiate themselves to sound special, and pretend to be against protectionism, except when it suits them.

I can't think of a more obvious example of protectionism than farm subsidies, and by my estimation that is a male dominated profession, but nobody is really getting all hot an bothered about that, or going on about its maleness being protected against foreign competition over female dominated sectors. I fail to see how these female sectors you talk of are more relevant to this than anything else.

I really fail to see how women are protected from cheap import imports, more than men. I think the argument you make it pretty weak tbh. It is you that made the link to cheap imports in the first instance. How is this the fault of women, or feminists?

I think if you are to make an example, make a better one. You score an own goal if you seek pin the blame on women for all these general issues beyond their control, rather that better though out arguments.

It is way too one track, for my taste. Why so hung up on women? At least make better arguments, otherwise it seems like you link every problem to women, and little else.

That's cute: a libertarian litmus test. You should call me a "LINO" to complete the effect.



...which accounts for very little labor in the US, and not much movement of payroll money.



Not working in manufacturing is pretty good protection from import pressure. Is the gender breakdown different in the UK?