Look at some of the stories from the media. Some airlines will not allow males sit next to unaccompanied children. A theme park bans single males from bird watching, "in case they are predators". Female sexual assaults are disgusting while male sexual assaults are funny, to most people. If a little girl has a problem, it is immediately attended to, whereas if a little boy has a problem, he is told to "be a man and suck it up".
Feminism is cool whereas MRA is not. Oh, we also have some "interesting" people like this - http://www.vice.com/read/is-reducing-the-male-population-by-...
And so on.
I wish we look at problems without the gender/race/nationality etc lens and only purely based on their merit. This is 2015 and we still have gender stereotypes, whole lot of double standards (for both genders), laws favoring one gender or the other etc. All this noise is just tiring.
Because MRA has an absolutely horrific public image. If they concentrated on topics like visitation rights in divorce they'd be well appreciated - Fathers 4 Justice[1] is/was an organsiation that does exactly that and received positive coverage back in the mid-2000s (sadly, according to Wikipedia they've since gotten worse)
By contrast, almost every MRA conversation I've ever seen has been talking about how awful Feminists are. Using "Social justice warrior" to cover anyone who is passionate about helping women do anything (and why is it a negative label anyway?). About fake rape accusations as if they cast doubt over every legitimate accusation ever made. About how scantily clad women are 'asking for it'.
Is it really any wonder MRA isn't "cool"? (and let's be honest - Feminism isn't exactly universally cool anyway)
Didn't feminism have similar beginnings? It was a lot more angry, and it was justified. That anger often tipped over into unwarranted hatred and generalization, but that doesn't mean the anger was unjustified.
The Femitheist article was actually satire. Yeah, I also didn't quite get it either, though I was thinking that it must be satire, it was so over the top. Poe's law in action, I guess, and well-executed!
"I now no longer present my satirical works without making it clear that they are not serious, as many people have been unable to recognize that fact on their own, despite the over-the-top and theatrical style of said presentations."
There are some topics that are impossible to discuss even for 5 minutes, before it turns ugly with labels, name calling etc. Gender topics top that list (others include religion, political affiliation, eating meat etc). May be what you are saying is true, still it would be nice to refrain from name calling etc, right? Not that it bothers me personally, it just diverts the conversation from the actual issue. In the end, many people just keep quiet as they realize nothing they say is going to help.
We have managed to figure out how to land on the moon and yet we can't figure out how to weigh certain issues on their merit, and merit only.
>> May be what you are saying is true, still it would be nice to refrain from name calling etc, right?
It's just language....
To put it another way - it's easy to see that a mens rights movement could exist that actually pushes for mens rights. All we seem to have now is a group of reactionaries that like to rant about the evils of women and feminism, and espouse some (IMHO) horrific views about women and their place in the world. They also see mens rights as a fight against feminism in a sort of tug-of-war where no fight needs to exists - gender roles and inequalities could be fought together.
I think calling them misogynist dickholes just about covered it though, because that is the way they generally come across.
I have no problem with the "actual issue" of discussing ways in which men are treated unfairly by society. I have a huge problem with the people who have taken it upon themselves to stand up and be called "mens rights activists" and then proceed to rail against women's rights and women's rights activists as if they are the enemy.
But part of the problem is that nobody would address radical feminists as "misandrist cuntholes", right? Doing so would automatically disqualify your credibility. But for men, it's fine, they are really dickholes, right?
Most people will have to look up "the opposite of misogyny" to find "misandry", and that's telling in itself. I do understand why this happens (misogyny has always been a culturally-recognized problem with real repercussions, the opposite not so much), but it still happens and it does unbalance the cultural perception of things.
Of course, I was just taking HN as a random sample, to show that even in our highly-educated, male-dominated geek community, people are quite familiar with one term but not the other. This is significant and relevant to the argument, imho.
>> I'm pretty sure that this statement makes you a misandrist.
You'd be wrong then.
Misandry would be the hating or disparaging of men as a group, not the hating or disparaging of the MRA movement as it exists right now.
As a man, I do not identify with MRA and neither am I offended if someone criticises them, it is not misandry to do so. As I said - I can see that there could be a mens rights movement that addressed mens issues without resorting to being misogynist and anti-feminist. I do not think this exists in the MRA sphere at present. I do not think feminism (in its more mainstream forms) is the enemy, either, in fact it should be a natural ally.
I'll concede that a lot of outspoken feminists often try to intentionally confuse this issue as well, painting anyone who disagrees with any facet of feminism, no matter how extreme, as being misogynist.
And you are conflating anti-feminism with misogyny. It's very hard not to be anti-feminist when NOW is sabotaging shared parenting[1]. Feminism can't be natural ally of mens' rights because it is actively pushing against it. And please don't say that it is the issue with fringe feminists. NOW is not fringe, its as mainstream as it gets.
Have you heard what feminists say about legal parental surrender, military draft, circumcision, false accusations etc? Dodging the issue, invoking "it's patriarchy", FGM straw man and so on. With variations of "XYZ can't be fixed because its biology" or "add more feminism".
You are right on one thing. Traditionalist women are actually much worse than feminists when it comes to MR. Unfortunately feminists cater to this particular "electorate" and because of that feminists are not allies of MRM (outside of /r/FeMRADebates).
>> And you are conflating anti-feminism with misogyny.
No, I'm not, in fact I'm explicitly and deliberately not doing that, as I said here -
"I'll concede that a lot of outspoken feminists often try to intentionally confuse this issue as well, painting anyone who disagrees with any facet of feminism, no matter how extreme, as being misogynist."
>> Feminism can't be natural ally of mens' rights because it is actively pushing against it.
I disagree.
--edit--
In fact I disagree entirely, there's no reason at all that a mens rights movement could not exist to push the issues you call out, and work alongside a feminist movement working on feminist issues. Women campaigning for greater access to the workplace, and against street harassment, are not in opposition to men wanting greater access to their children. This is what I mean by natural allies.
The idea that they are necessarily in opposition is childish.
They are not in opposition when it comes to idea and desired end goal. They are pretty much in opposition when it comes to political means of reaching that goal. You can't have social change without support of large part of population. MRM caters mostly to men, Feminism caters mostly to women.
> Women campaigning for greater access to the workplace, and against street harassment, are not in opposition to men wanting greater access to their children. This is what I mean by natural allies.
In theory. But in practice they are. Please read the link I provided.
I really hope that you are right and both movements can actually come and act together. Equal Rights Amendment was a beautiful thing, shame it died.
As for now we have rape-on-campus (not supported by statistical data) moral panic instead.
Going off of that Vice article, sometimes I think that a 40/60 ratio of men to women would be favorable... it'd probably reflect the proportions of our hunter gatherer ancestry, and a lot of psychological benefits would come with that I'd imagine.
But everything else she said was extremely misandrist and sexist.
You can actually see the difference in gender relations in places with different gender ratios, and by age, as well.
"Single men become a rare commodity later in life due to our unfortunate propensity for dying. If you can get to 50 the world seems to be nothing but women."
"sometimes I think that a 40/60 ratio of men to women would be favorable..."
Without wanting to turn this into a race thing, there are sociological circumstances which sort of give us a glimpse (in subsets of the population) of what that could look like - and it's not pretty... See e.g. http://www.economist.com/node/21532296, which is one of the lesser emotionally charged discussions of it, but I'm sure you can find the right Google terms to find dozens of other articles about it yourself.
heh. Is there any part of that that's concretely not true? Humans all over the world have come up with it independently -- I dunno, unless Muslims and Mormons shared notes.
I could even go further and claim it to be an almost pan-mammalian truth.
Men and women are different. Especially when it comes to sex.
No, they're not that different, no you don't need more sex than one woman can give you to remain mentally healthy, as evidenced by all the not-crazy monogamists. You're an idiot.
If you want more than one partner, go for it, become a polyamorist. Lots of men and women do.
But your generalisations and your attitude towards women are childish, you need to grow up.
Look at the testimony of transgender people who go on hormones, especially female-to-male people. There's so much anecdotal evidence suggesting that the male libido is out of control compared to the female one.
> If you want more than one partner, go for it, become a polyamorist. Lots of men and women do.
I think what he's referring to is competition. Since there are more women than men it's more likely for a man to find a mate as compared to a society where there are an equal amount of men and women (since it's more likely that a women he would be interested in is taken). Women end up getting the shit end of the stick, though.
> But your generalisations and your attitude towards women are childish, you need to grow up.
I may have been exaggerating when I said mental health+, but it's still a fact that men still aren't getting laid as much as they would ideally like to=.
I mean, how would you even know? Because they aren't begging for it constantly? Really, I can tell you that that's more due to being polite and knowing in advance that the answer will be no.
+ I term I use in a much broader sense internally, since I don't know any better for word it. So I might let it out without checking if other people will understand what I'm saying.
= Not that they're entitled to it or anything, but then that never was my point.
What you're doing is generalizing people based on their gender; which is, by definition, sexist.
I'm not trying to harp on you - I have also been guilty of this not too long ago. Your experience does not represent that of all men, and your mental model of what a woman is does not represent all women. You are literally generalizing two groups consisting of 3.5 billion people, the vast majority of which you will never even see in your entire life.
> but it's still a fact that men still aren't getting laid as much as they would ideally like to
I'm pretty sure you're internally replacing "men" with "me" here.
> I mean, how would you even know? Because they aren't begging for it constantly? Really, I can tell you that that's more due to being polite and knowing in advance that the answer will be no.
If you don't think that the woman you are with has a high enough sex drive for you then you should probably discuss it with her or find someone more compatible with your needs.
If you can't be satisfied with sex with only one woman the you are free to lead a polyamorist lifestyle if you wish.
It's the generalisations across entire genders and the implied sexism that come across as childish. Not to mention your bizarre and horrific attitudes to rape. Do what you like, but women are people with varying tastes and drives just as much as men are. Maybe if you got to know a few you might find this out.
... I'd roll my eyes, but I'm not American enough. What's being discussed is barely even rape at all, except in some broad, all-encompassing dictionary-style definition of the word. Something falling under the broadest possible definition of the word rape doesn't automatically mean that it's rape in the sense of a male assaulting and raping someone.
> women are people with varying tastes and drives just as much as men are.
Yes, and there's barely a person alive that doesn't know this; see point #1.
I was talking about the attitudes to rape you displayed in the other thread further down the page, some of which have now been deleted they were so bad.
It's awful, you have a terrible attitude and a real lack of empathy.
I mean this - "Having sex with someone without their consent is rape, but that doesn't automatically mean it's a bad thing." - what the fuck? You clearly have no idea and I hope you're just young and stupid.
I can't remember everything I've written, but I don't see that anything's been deleted.
I'm sorry if I can't accept it as an axiom that all rape is equally bad...
Are you. seriously. saying. that just because something falls under the broadest and most pedantic definition of rape, that that means it must automatically be violent, bloody, sadistic?
If you fuck someone awake in the morning, that fits that very same definition of rape, therefore it _is_ rape, but it's obviously not a bad thing.
If one such counterexample exists I don't see why a few more shouldn't.
Are you even AWARE that I'm talking about the WOMAN initiating here?
and the reason I'm saying that is that the main argument against me on that subject seems to be: "rape is very bad because rape is very bad".
also: the posts were shadow-deleted. also: I can't even comprehend how sensitive people are that they feel the need to delete that. it isn't even hate speech or anything, not that speech in itself is a bad thing or that people can't just ignore it when they see it.
the only thing I can see accomplished by such deletion would be people assuming the absolute worst, on the basis of information they don't have access to.
And so on.
I wish we look at problems without the gender/race/nationality etc lens and only purely based on their merit. This is 2015 and we still have gender stereotypes, whole lot of double standards (for both genders), laws favoring one gender or the other etc. All this noise is just tiring.