Are MRAs always angry?

Post Reply New Topic

So true. In western nations outrageous gender expectations are stuck on every billboard every magazine and movie, pumped into homes and cars via TV, internet and radio. It must be incredibly confusing to be subjected to that amount of brainwashing. I would imagine much of the influence occur well before puberty.

I should also mention a couple of other things about your list above:

1: Women in much of the West could own land and inherit large sums of money. Much of Mark Twain's money came from his wife's inheritance. Napoleon III was bankrolled by Harriet Howard.

2: The earlier reference by a female WP member to girls being married off at 7 needs clarification. Marriage could mean different things, and I'm not sure which she meant. Nobility sometimes had arranged marriages between children of similar ages. Those could happen as early as five, and neither of the children got to choose. In frontier America, the young end of the spectrum was 12. In Saudi Arabia, the standard is roughly puberty.



Obviously it's confused you so completely that you're not even aware of it. How is that just a girls' problem? Does the stereotype of the father as a cash machine cum human shield not influence boys? (That's not sour-grapes. The men in my family were really good at being traditional, battle hardened, cash spewing men. That's what I trained for as a kid.)

In the case of male roles, we enforce them statutorily through the public school system. If they cared one whit about boys' wellbeing, they'd teach us negotiating skills. Instead they teach us that work is an obligation. Some work is. Most of it isn't. Most of it isn't even useful.

[/quote]

I never stated that this was a female only issue. I am obviously aware of it or I would not have addressed it. Your reply to my post seems unnecessarily aggressive.
It seems like you have issues relating to gender roles, understanding how this has impacted on you should give you some understanding on the similar stereotypical gender expectations placed on females.[quote]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezOZCVEimXY[/youtube]

NobodyKnows - I'll deal with this one matter at a time.

Circumcision - please tell me how feminists are, or feminism is, in any way a significant block to the ending of male circumcision. Or a block at all. I guarantee if feminists presented a united face on the matter - and they don't tend to present a united face on many topics - many MRAs would respond 'bloody feminists, meddling in men's issues, telling men what to do with their bodies, hating male traditions and masculine logical science, it's political correctness gone mad, we'd be rounded up and spat on if we tried to do anything similar with women's issues. You know what I call them? Feminazis! Clever, isn't it?'.

To repeat myself, and please try and understand, and you actually provided the numbers for this point yourself, so I hope you will: MGM is normal in western society (and around the world). No, it does not make it right. But it does make it normal. It is particularly normal in the US, supported and promoted big time by the medical establishment. Even in the UK, though not practised as normal, it is an old enough and known enough tradition that, as with many traditions, most people don't think much about it.

FGM, on the other hand, is not normal in western society, nor particularly around the world. It was new and shocking when it came to western public attention. It also had the advantage to us in the west that it was done by dark skinned foreigners who talk funny, who are easily understood as backwards and brutal and whose ways are always weird, and about whom the west should have no compunction in correcting. But male circumcision? Oh. We do that, and quite a lot. Have done for a long time. That must mean it's normal and fine - oh hey, look, here's some men and women in white coats telling us so. Phew!

MRA position: Stupid feminists - look at this radfem article attacking the non-questioning of the power and authority of science in society. Lol. They so hate male logic they'd rather go to a homeopath? Idiots! [Beat]. Man, I hate these stupid feminists, refusing to question the power and authority of science in society.

I don't get in any way why feminism needs to be brought into the matter. "Because they're against FGM but not MGM! Some are even pro it!". Like much of the rest of the public, then, no? FFS. Here's the thing: if MRAs such as yourself bang on about the feminists blocking the ending of MGM, it will be taken by feminists as simply an excuse for attacking feminism. And they'd be right. There is no reason to single out a lack of feminist agreement/speaking out on the matter over the same from the public at large. 'I'm against male circumcision' quickly becomes code for 'bash the eeevil feminists!'. Which is a shame, as if you can't mention MGM without acting as if you've been hypnotised so as to throw in, 'and you know, some feminists are pro it!' with it, it just looks like the issue isn't so much MGM as it is that, bascially, feminists and feminism dares to exist. Which, let's face it, is pretty accurate.

Those who want to put an end to circumcision do not need the support of feminists en masse, nor even for the feminist pro-circumcision lobby to put an end to their nefarious deeds. Seriously - what do you think the public response would be if feminists en masse came out against MGM? What is the public response to feminist pronouncements at large? "Damn feminists, wanting to legislate to interfere with our traditions and medicine, telling us what we can and can't do with our children. Don't they respect or know any damn thing men do?".

Just, 'hi, we're from [your anti-GM group name here], and we'd like to talk to you about why we think male cicrumcision is wrong. I would hope it is a given that we agree FGM is a wicked practice and should be stopped, but we here at [your anti-GM group name here] would like to go one further, and see all and any non-medically necessary surgery on the genitals of children, and indeed anyone non-consenting, of any gender, come to an end. We understand that here in [your country here], male circumcision is seen as no big deal, a benign and often important tradition for many people, and even garnering support from medical science. But we at [your anti-GM group name here] believe it is always wrong to surgically alter a child's body unless great medical necessity is shown. Here's why'. Why on earth do feminists of any disposition need to be dragged in, thus distorting the matter? "Because some feminists are pro MGM!". Sigh. Didn't we already do this? In terms of particular groups being pro circumcision, is it really the feminist one who have instigated and propagated the practice, and giving the backing of medical science to the matter?

"It's a feminist issue because mothers are complicit!". It's a feminist issue because a woman believes in, and yields to, the practices of the culture she's in and in the opinion of medical science more than in her own feeling that removing a part of the genitals from the son she has just carried and given birth to might not be very nice. Because what kind of sick, stupid woman would question the practices of her culture, would dare to think that maybe science ought not to necessarily be a venerated, unquestioned authority? Hmmm. (Incase you can't tell from that 'hmmm', she would likely be a feminist. She'd certainly be called one by those outraged by her insolence.)

And as you have seen here, there are feminists against circumcision. If one is against MGM, but refracts that position through endless attacks on the lack of feminist sympathy, or highlighting their 'hypocrisy', then clearly one is not so much against MGM as pro having-a-go-at-feminists-using-any-issue-at-hand. Raising the issue of male circumcision is also easily taken as anti-semitism. And who wants to go there? Tricky terrain, requiring nuance and deep thought and open conversation, all in good faith. Far better to have a go at feminists for not doing what you want them to - it allows one the luxury of pretending it could all be sorted out if it weren't for feminism. It'll provoke needless division, and piss away energy better put to actually dealing with MGM, so the practice will continue. But hey - at least you can go on having a pop at feminists how it would be sorted if it wasn't for them. Which is pretty f*****g sick.

Simply: MRAs do not care as much about ending MGM as they do about attacking feminists.

Last edited by Hopper on 19 Apr 2014, 5:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

To be honest I don't take either of them seriously! MRAs complain about stupid stuff like women being empowered and Feminists for saying all men are rapists etc then there are factions of feminists who argue with eachother and few dissagree with the radical ones with the loud mouths like Andrea Dworkin etc. Its all stupid if you ask me, women can be raped and yes even men can be raped, women get abused by men and face sexism and sexual harrassments by men but it also happens to men by women. The only thing that bothers me is they both claim for equality but tend to ignore the issues the opposite genders face when bad stuff happens to them like a man being a victim of abuse by a woman a feminist will ridicule him and say he deserved it or just man up but at the same time if its a woman in that situation they have total sympathy for her.

lmao! thank you missliz, i will use this every time i have a conversation with an MRA--what do you win if you get a full card? i imagine that it wouldn't take long with most of them before they manage to bring up everything on the card.

Isn't google images great.

i cannot laugh at postings of feminists openly advocating mass murder and enslavement of males which includes me. if the posts where doing the same towards women would you still laugh at them? why is it ok to call for killing of men and not women? why is that advocating the genocide of men is seen as humor but when it directed at women it is not?

We all know that O.J. Simpson did it.

In some states "The Juice" might well have gotten the death penalty.

nice to see that people here takes calls calling for the genocide of men some using methods like stabbings as humor. and refuse to answer if it will be still humor if this was directed as women.

I will remember this thread next time when you whine about misogyny in future threads.

Oh Jesus Christ get over it,it's a joke ,dark humor.Lighten the f**k up.We are all in this together,the sooner we work together,the better.As for ALL women are b*****s, or ALL men are rapists,well,BS,there is no ALL.

if it were more than about 5 women out of the approx 3 billion women on the planet that were calling for the death of all men, i might be concerned. why should i be concerned about the misandry of a handful of people? i don't know them and i don't support them. if it were a large organisation with lots of public support calling for the death of all men, obviously it would be a very different story and something to be concerned about.

a handful of whackjobs are just that--a handful of whackjobs, and not to be taken seriously. if you really believe this is the sort of thing to get genuinely upset about, you may want to consider rearranging your emotional priorities.

I assume the Juice placard is a photoshop? What is the joke, I don't get it.