Are MRAs always angry?

Post Reply New Topic

I mean they do like to whine all the time about women not making them sandwitches and use unrealistic statistics of false rape charges to justify their movement of whining about women all the time.

What is MRA?

Yes, but why not? They're angry at what they see as injustice - most people who do this get angry about it, particularly if they're moved enough to join a group or movement in response. So I don't think them being angry is in itself a problem (though it can spill over into abusiveness), in that it somehow discredits them. Anger is a valid response.

The problem is that they're wrong and obnoxious.

Oh boy, this again.

Never met one in real life.From what I understand they sure are cranky.I guess they need to get laid to even those hormones out.Isn't that what they say about us when were grumpy ?

Lol, this is obviously meant for humor purposes.

I recently did a small amount of "research" on MRA just out of boredom. I don't claim to know much about it. But it seems rather silly. A common belief among MRA members seems to be that "feminism is a virus" and they hold onto this idea with a sort of quasi-religious conviction. Personally, I think it is thinly-veiled misogynism.

The fact is that they are attacking a straw man. The rights that the MRA "claim" to care about feminism seems to care about as well.

The more sane MRA members are actively trying to change laws and start organizations to help male victims. The less sane ones go on tirades against the feminist movement which is baffling to me. I don't really understand it. But I don't think its meant to be logical. I think it is a way for people who feel victimized to regain a feeling of power and self-importance. Which is fine, but some of its members cross the line over from rational discussion to thinly-veiled and sometimes blatant misogyny. Misogyny is a lot like porn. I know it when I see it.

I'm pretty sure that most feminists know even less about the lives of men than Todd Akin knows about their vaginas. If you're going to claim the intellectual high-ground while lambasting "male privilege," it's only fair for me to ask that you do your homework. Men haven't had less hardship.

As I've said elsewhere, if you and Laura Bush want to teach every Afghan girl to read while doing nothing for the Pashtun boys molested by bacha baz*, then you're more than welcome to throw on your own ACUs, shoulder your own M4 and do your own fighting, killing, maiming, suffering and dying.

*http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/brinkley/article/Afghanistan-s-dirty-little-secret-3176762.php

Arabia and Central Asia suck for everyone. (Seriously. Read the link.) And when Europe was that backward, we had castrati. Europe, Arabia and Asia had eunics The last castroto didn't retire until 1913. We could excise a women's ovaries without anesthesia and then ask her which is worse...

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).

Women in pre-Norman England could own property. They lost that when the Normans took over, but men lost a lot also: The thanes were mostly killed and replaced with Duke William's soldiers. The Normans used blindings, castrations, hangings, beheadings, and burnings at the stake to subdue England. My Irish ancestors suffered under that for 600 years before fleeing to America during the potato famine. The English pressed Irish men into service in their navy. The penalties for insubordination included keel-hauling (being drowned and flayed, simultaneously) and flogging around the port (being whipped to death, slowly, in front of every ship's crew, if you held out that long).

Girls may have been married off at the age of 7 (as a feminist poster on another thread claimed), but boys were apprenticed off at that age as well. They became the property of cobblers, tailors or blacksmiths if they were lucky. Those who lived long enough might inherit the shop a few years before they died. The unlucky ones became farm laborers and had no change of advancement.

Men haven't had exclusive power over the US government since 1920. Women in Wyoming, Colorado and Idaho have had the right to vote since 1869, 1893 and 1896, respectively. Women in the Territory of Utah also had the right to vote between 1869 and 1887, and regained it in 1895. Women is Kansas have had the right to vote in municipal elections since 1887. That's nothing to sneeze at: Most domestic and civilian policy was made at the local level until the middle of the following century. Several other states had equal suffrage before 1920, including California, New York, Illinois, Oregon, Arizona and Montana.

A woman who was old enough to vote when the 19th Amendment passed would be 115 years old today. A woman old enough to ovulate when the pill came out can collect Social Security now. A woman who was in college when Title IX passed is over 60 today.

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.

It's easy to tell from people's career choices that most 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. You could ask me to apologize to the minority of girls might have been warrior princesses in the past if they'd been given the chance, but then you owe an apology to the majority of men who would have preferred to stay safely at home. If women believe that they were forced into domestic roles by men acting capriciously, then they need to show how gender integration could have been achieved in the 1800s or earlier.