Talk:Men's rights movement
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>
Contents |
[edit] Circumcision
The article is horribly trivializing towards male genital mutilation. we do not compare it to FGM, we point out how it is sexual mutilation that violates human right and significantly reduces sexual pleasure. this is a point feminists bring up to derail the conversation. male circumcision is horrible and should be treated as such its disgusting how feminists fight so hard to encourage the mutilation of male children.
and if africa, it IS comparable to FGM. thouands of boys die every year and the method are often brutal. but even compared to western circumcision....a woman without a clitoris can still have a very intense g-spot orgasm. a circumcised man will be relatively numb his entire life, and will NEVER have an orgasm beyond a certain magnitude
but quite frankly, it doesnt matter. circumcision should be assessed on it's INTRINSIC nature, not how it compares to something else. how much worse FGM is is irrelevant. circumcision is mutilation and wrong because it removes the majority of sexual nerve endings and most sensitive parts of the penis. a study from the british medical journal last yar found that circmcision removes 75% of sexual sensitivity.
the conversation on circumcision should be about circumcision, not how much wore FGM is. its like saying cutting off a finger isnt bad because cutting off the whole arm is worse
- FGM means anything from closing up the vagina so as to keep women virgins till they are married to cutting off the clitoris. To say that a woman can still experience orgasm via the g-spot (of which people still don't completely believe exists) then men can still experience orgasm from their prostate, considered the male g-spot.
- Without googling, I haven't heard of any reports of men having issues from circumcision though I believe it's possible, any surgical procedure can go wrong but it is possible to get their foreskin and sensitivity back. Numinous sources also say that there are positive health benefits to male circumcision. Should this be done to infant simply because the parents want to based on religion? Probably not, they can always choose to have it done as adults.
[edit] Social Double Standard
This page fails to address the MRA stance on political correctness in regards to gender relationships. For example, Sharon Osbourne's presentation on The Talk about Catherine Kieu mutilating the genitals of her husband [summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Osbourne#The_Talk]. The audience found it laughable in lieu of the fact that were the roles reversed there would undoubtedly have been mass uproar. A second example is the "battered wife" defense in court. To anecdote this, Susan Falls went free despite having admitted to the murder in front of a jury http://australian-news.net/articles/view.php?id=141. Though impossible to rectify the bias of the court to her gender was obvious. The page has nevertheless been constructed in very poor order with a strong anti-MRA bias. Stating the MRA is anti-female alone (as can be seen in the introduction as of (NDL 11.05 08/10/2014) contradicts that which is outlined in their principles, which on the contrary argue for gender equality and freedom of speech. This entire page needs immediate examination by an administrator to remove the feminist bias. — Unsigned, by: 121.75.214.114 / talk / contribs 23:09, 7 October 2014
- The MRA is bullshit. That joke is funny pretty much due to patriarchy homie. Susan Falls was repeatedly abused by that guy for years, she murdered him but it was hardly as black and white as you dishonestly make it. MRA's argue for gender equality? What planet does protecting privilege equal arguing for equality? Freedom of Speech? Hardly. This is Rational Wiki, a reactionary movement designed to protect the rights of white, heterosexual, males is going to get made fun of here.- — Unsigned, by: BlackProg / talk / contribs 01:05, 8 October 2014
- From where did you get that it is a white only thing? Are you one of those trolls? --Someon (talk) 11:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- You wish, I've been around the manosphere and MRA to know that y'all got some real issues with white supremacists being pretty popular in your ranks. It's a movement created by white men that is still exclusively white men with the intent of protecting the power and privilege of white men. I mean, yeah you got Obsidian's self-hating ass, but he's a token and even he faces obvious racism. --BlackProg (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't realize you knew every MRA by name. --Someon (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Not all men's rights activists!! --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't realize you knew every MRA by name. --Someon (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Please, the men's rights movement has a real problem with allowing white nationalists to operate freely within their movement, and that's just the really overt stuff: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- @121.75.214.114:
- You've got anecdotal evidence. Please get statistics about Western culture's view of males and females and come back.
- FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 02:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- You wish, I've been around the manosphere and MRA to know that y'all got some real issues with white supremacists being pretty popular in your ranks. It's a movement created by white men that is still exclusively white men with the intent of protecting the power and privilege of white men. I mean, yeah you got Obsidian's self-hating ass, but he's a token and even he faces obvious racism. --BlackProg (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- From where did you get that it is a white only thing? Are you one of those trolls? --Someon (talk) 11:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
From 121.75.214.114: I understand that anecdotes do not present proof; at the time I was under the impression they were synonymous with the word 'example'; forgive the confusion. Regardless this page needs rectifying; if RationalWiki is a reliable source of information then its content should be taken seriously, whatever the subject matter may be.
- RationalWiki tends to use more snark when it is writing on reactionary groups or hate movements because taking their arguments too seriously can give them credence to some --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Re: Yes, but MRA is neither a radical nor a hateful movement, or at least, no more than feminism is. Hence the need for this article to be reviewed. — Unsigned, by: 210.55.186.161 / talk / contribs
- I said reactionary, not radical. Reactionary means "opposing political or social progress or reform". By being antifeminist, the movement is reactionary by definition. Other examples of reactionary movements are the anti-LGBT movement and the white nationalist movement. Also I've spent some years reading posts and articles from the men's rights movement and I am unconvinced that it is not a hateful anti-female movement at its core --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 07:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- The same applies for feminism, yet RationalWiki is far more favorable in their description. See the double standard now? These groups are two feathers on a bird, working towards a common goal, why is this site is so two-faced in reporting on them? — Unsigned, by: 210.55.186.161 / talk / contribs
- None of what I said applies to feminism. How on earth can feminism be a reactionary movement? That doesn't make sense by the meaning of the word. It's redundant to compare the two, they have completely different histories, approaches, goals and achievements. I don't see how they can be working towards a common goal when the men's rights movement is primarily an antifeminist movement. We aren't going to lie about what the movement is about or is currently doing just because there is another movement that sounds sort of similar if you don't know much about either --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- "None of what I said applies to feminism" argument by definition, there are many examples of feminism stretching beyond the boundaries of what it is 'defined as'. Simply because MRA doesn't have a definition relating to striving for gender equality by focusing on men's problems in society doesn't mean they're patriarchial or misogynistic; that would be idiotic to say. My comparison is by their policies and goals; their histories and achievements are utterly irrelevant. They both strive for gender egalitarianism, they both focus on one side of the argument rather than looking at the bigger picture, and to claim that feminists are the only group to look at equality of gender is a false dichotomy and is completely ignorant. — Unsigned, by: 210.55.186.161 / talk / contribs 02:15, 23 October 2014
- Sure, well you are welcome to try and educate me with sources if you are so convinced. Please don't be so quick to label me as ignorant, I'm arguing based what I have been exposed to of the men's rights movement, which is mostly from men's rights websites, forum discussions on men's rights forums, books by figures like Farrell, and the recently talks by A Voice for Men. I've also read many books by feminist writers and have been involved in the movement itself. It has done a lot of real world good and helped many women. As far as I am concerned the men's rights movement predominately acts as a reactionary antifeminist movement and has little to contribute to the gender debate other than as a retort to feminism. Again, you are welcome to convince me otherwise --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 10:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Isn't one of AVFM's main stated goals to oppose feminism AS WELL AS traditional/patriarchal/chivalrous gender roles? Plus that there's actually a significant overlap between the two? If so, it doesn't meet the definition of "reactionary". I've seen a couple of Paul Elam videos and several videos/talks by GWW, and found them to be consistent with this image. Bernard Chapin, a right-wing/libertarian MRA unaffiliated with and even critical of AVFM, says something about "manhood" here and there, but, from what I've seen, basically holds the same view.
- Now this isn't "my topic" and my familiarity with it is only peripheral - so I'm not vouching for anything, nor bovvered enough to go fishing for citations. I'm just kind of confused how this rather prominent aspect of the MRM hasn't been brought up in this conversation... 93.223.20.206 (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've read some articles concerning that, I think I'd say that a fair amount of men's rights activists do oppose traiditional gender roles for men, including some at A Voice for Men, but there are also plenty who don't. What unites them and what is the one thing that ties the movement together is opposition to feminism and a desire to revert the social changes (or successes) made by the movement --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Kinda like some feminists draw charts with "feminine traits" and "masculine traits" while others think such notions are sexist, eh? :)
- Anyway, don't remember any particular cases of specifically MRAs (as opposed to other segments from the "manosphere") advocating for gender roles, personally, however, I've seen several talk a lot about "manhood" - for instance there's a youtuber called "Barbarossaaa" who falls into this category, and also happens to match feminist stereotypes of MRAs pretty well from what I've seen. So yea, there's obviously a dichotomy there.
- However, the ones who're against gender roles, can hardly oppose those "feminist changes/successes" that eliminated gender roles themselves, can they? The ones I've seen rather oppose the gender *discrimination* they see coming from feminism, which I'm not sure if the opposition to that kind of "progress" can be called reactionary - at least not in "that sense" of the word that implies a horde of regressive old-timers if you take my meaning. The "spearhead" guys seem to be reactionary, and I've seen reactionary groups openly advocating for "male leadership" criticizing MRAs for being deluded about equality, not striving to return to traditinoal patriarchy etc., so I dunno - seems to me like things are much less clear-cut here. 93.223.20.206 (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's funny you mention the Spearhead as that is a men's rights website. There actually aren't too many and most are connected in some way, such as Elam's writing for the Spearhead and regular support of it, so forgive me if I confuse the readership of one with that of another. Most Manosphere websites get posted on r/mensrights too so I do see them as being part of the same movement. I'm not going to argue that there are no men's rights activists who are concerned with male gender roles, I just have no idea why they are blaming feminism for this. I'm male and I honestly don't feel the need to act in a certain way (let's call that masculine) around feminists that I know, whereas I do get fairly regular harassment from men when I am out in the city, mostly for not being reportedly masculine enough. That's where I see gender roles enforced, in terms of male behaviour at least. The application of blame to feminism for male gender roles is honestly bizarre. You may be equating masculine/feminine to male/female when in reality people of any gender can act in any way. It's a way of describing a behaviour rather than a sex. I'm not sure how clear-cut it is, I don't think the men's rights movement is coherent enough to have a clear-cut ethos if I'm honest. At it's tenant it is a group of people with wildly different political views coming together to try to undermine different facets of the feminist movement, with varying quality of arguments, with many not seeming to understand or be particularly well read in feminism in the first place. It is in this opposition to feminism that I'd argue it is reactionary and I regularly see posters wanting to return to the status quo using evolution-based arguments for why this would work best --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 10:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ah okay, looks like I'm out of my depth on this one then :)
- I know of some dissent within the movement, but I guess this one's not one of them...
- It's funny you mention the Spearhead as that is a men's rights website. There actually aren't too many and most are connected in some way, such as Elam's writing for the Spearhead and regular support of it, so forgive me if I confuse the readership of one with that of another. Most Manosphere websites get posted on r/mensrights too so I do see them as being part of the same movement. I'm not going to argue that there are no men's rights activists who are concerned with male gender roles, I just have no idea why they are blaming feminism for this. I'm male and I honestly don't feel the need to act in a certain way (let's call that masculine) around feminists that I know, whereas I do get fairly regular harassment from men when I am out in the city, mostly for not being reportedly masculine enough. That's where I see gender roles enforced, in terms of male behaviour at least. The application of blame to feminism for male gender roles is honestly bizarre. You may be equating masculine/feminine to male/female when in reality people of any gender can act in any way. It's a way of describing a behaviour rather than a sex. I'm not sure how clear-cut it is, I don't think the men's rights movement is coherent enough to have a clear-cut ethos if I'm honest. At it's tenant it is a group of people with wildly different political views coming together to try to undermine different facets of the feminist movement, with varying quality of arguments, with many not seeming to understand or be particularly well read in feminism in the first place. It is in this opposition to feminism that I'd argue it is reactionary and I regularly see posters wanting to return to the status quo using evolution-based arguments for why this would work best --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 10:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've read some articles concerning that, I think I'd say that a fair amount of men's rights activists do oppose traiditional gender roles for men, including some at A Voice for Men, but there are also plenty who don't. What unites them and what is the one thing that ties the movement together is opposition to feminism and a desire to revert the social changes (or successes) made by the movement --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, well you are welcome to try and educate me with sources if you are so convinced. Please don't be so quick to label me as ignorant, I'm arguing based what I have been exposed to of the men's rights movement, which is mostly from men's rights websites, forum discussions on men's rights forums, books by figures like Farrell, and the recently talks by A Voice for Men. I've also read many books by feminist writers and have been involved in the movement itself. It has done a lot of real world good and helped many women. As far as I am concerned the men's rights movement predominately acts as a reactionary antifeminist movement and has little to contribute to the gender debate other than as a retort to feminism. Again, you are welcome to convince me otherwise --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 10:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- "None of what I said applies to feminism" argument by definition, there are many examples of feminism stretching beyond the boundaries of what it is 'defined as'. Simply because MRA doesn't have a definition relating to striving for gender equality by focusing on men's problems in society doesn't mean they're patriarchial or misogynistic; that would be idiotic to say. My comparison is by their policies and goals; their histories and achievements are utterly irrelevant. They both strive for gender egalitarianism, they both focus on one side of the argument rather than looking at the bigger picture, and to claim that feminists are the only group to look at equality of gender is a false dichotomy and is completely ignorant. — Unsigned, by: 210.55.186.161 / talk / contribs 02:15, 23 October 2014
- None of what I said applies to feminism. How on earth can feminism be a reactionary movement? That doesn't make sense by the meaning of the word. It's redundant to compare the two, they have completely different histories, approaches, goals and achievements. I don't see how they can be working towards a common goal when the men's rights movement is primarily an antifeminist movement. We aren't going to lie about what the movement is about or is currently doing just because there is another movement that sounds sort of similar if you don't know much about either --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- The same applies for feminism, yet RationalWiki is far more favorable in their description. See the double standard now? These groups are two feathers on a bird, working towards a common goal, why is this site is so two-faced in reporting on them? — Unsigned, by: 210.55.186.161 / talk / contribs
- I said reactionary, not radical. Reactionary means "opposing political or social progress or reform". By being antifeminist, the movement is reactionary by definition. Other examples of reactionary movements are the anti-LGBT movement and the white nationalist movement. Also I've spent some years reading posts and articles from the men's rights movement and I am unconvinced that it is not a hateful anti-female movement at its core --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 07:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Re: Yes, but MRA is neither a radical nor a hateful movement, or at least, no more than feminism is. Hence the need for this article to be reviewed. — Unsigned, by: 210.55.186.161 / talk / contribs
- "I just have no idea why they are blaming feminism for this."
- Feminists cover a very wide spectrum of views that range anywhere from "castrate men" or "ban pornography" to humanists focusing on women's issues - and a lot of questionable things in the middle which include various forms of gender discrimination; some of which actually mirrors the chivalrous aspects of traditionalist/conservative views. To say feminism has no part in current views on gender is ridiculous - though people may be wrong about specifics. For example, this page has a sensible response to the VAWA issue - however, it ignores how much feminism has shaped views regarding women as victims and men as perpetrators. Also, some feminists acknowledge that mothers are given preferential treatment in child custody, and attribute that to patriarchal notions of motherhood - however, if it's true that decades ago the fathers were given preferential treatment, then feminism has a part in that as well.
- "I'm male and I honestly don't feel the need to act in a certain way (let's call that masculine) around feminists that I know,"
- Again, many different kinds of feminists out there - however, if you were to feel like acting "extra careful" around women (or just feminists), lest you might offend them or appear as a potential predator, then chances are it'd be due to feminism - which, along with general society, doesn't hold women to the same standards. Traditional/instinctual chivalry, however, has many parallels with that. Now does opposing to the "new, progressive" version of that, in addition to the "old regressive" one, make one a reactionary, or even a semi one? Not in the sense most people use the term, I don't think.
- Also, traditional gender roles aren't what they used to be - there are many women who, according to themselves, don't either. And I've never received harassment from anyone even though I'm not exactly a hulk either. The social environment that I'm in, in real life, is neither traditionalist nor feminist - however, both social attitudes do exist elsewhere.
- The general concept is valid, as long as traditionalism is acknowledged as a factor, too - however, as I said, you can always get specifics wrong, and you can always go about it in stupid ways. John's and Elam's unspeech about how one of their activists who committed suicide was "murdered" by this institution and that institution, was enough to mark them as buffoons in my book, for instance.
- "to return to the status quo using evolution-based arguments for why this would work best"
- I've seen them use evolution/nature a lot in a descriptive context (a bit liberally, I might add - to be fair, though, over-emphasizing nurture in everything is kinda what feminism is known for), and in other cases, argue for suppressing "evolutionary" instincts witin themselves. Seen less of the kinda thing you're describing, but probably just because I found it less interesting at the time - wasn't that "patriarchy works and let's see how long until we might have to return to it, eh" article on spearhead, too? 93.223.13.154 (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, this is going to be a difficult one to tackle. Primarily the men's rights movement is anti-feminist. As an ideology this means something different to simply criticising feminism. If you read feminist books you'll notice that feminists critique theories by other feminists all the time. This is where all the different types (and I suppose also waves) of feminism come from. There isn't one consistent ideology of feminism other than one that aims to help promote gender equality (generally, but not exclusively, focused on preventing discrimination that women or trans people face, because this is where gender inequality is found) but also in deconstructing gender roles in general, including those that men face. In other words, the notion that individuals cannot critique feminism without being anti-feminism is a strange one. Lots of theorists do critique the works of feminists in their books, those who aren't feminist, it just isn't sold as "anti-feminism" because it isn't written in direct opposition to feminism. I find this sort of confusing. Why be opposed to feminism in all of its shapes? Are these people opposed to the feminist groups like Casa Amiga, who protested against police corruption relating to the Ciudad Juárez femicides? Or what about the suffragists (the answer to this tends to depend on the website, but many do [10] [11] [12])? Why should there be the notion that "bad feminists" detract from the desire to improve things for women anyway? Why is it okay to say that sexism is "not that important" if it isn't actively femicide or the complete disregard of women's rights by society? How many women need to be killed or raped for it to constitute misogyny? There is sexism everywhere in society. It is absolutely unavoidable. Everyday Feminism is good at recording this. If the movement, at its core, is about promoting women's rights, then why would you oppose that en masse and take that on as an ideology? Why do some "bad feminists" mean that individuals feel the need to spend huge amounts of energy opposing all feminism? I'm not saying that you have to believe in feminism, but I have no idea why people spend careers critiquing feminism in all of its forms. That's pretty much what I see the anti-feminist movement as. It's people of different ideologies and viewpoints coming together to attack feminism with little to no nuance as to what exactly feminism consists of. I'm not saying that you have to read every (or even that many) feminist texts to oppose it, or even support feminism, but it's strange to me that so many seem to understand little to none of what the movement consist of or the history that predates it, or even the prejudice that women face today. Anti-feminism is no different to being opposed to the civil rights of any other group. I'm rambling a little, this is sort of a large topic and I'm probably out of my depth.
- In my eyes one of the aims of feminism is to deconstruct the notion that men are always perpetrators and women are always victims. It comes up fairly often in feminist texts. I regularly see feminists writing in support of male rape survivors too. Are there areas within feminism that could improve on this specific issue? Maybe, but I think the movement does a good enough job at doing this without a men's rights movement stating that "equality has gone too far" or whatever. Again, it's the stance in direct opposition that I have issues with, as well as the generalisations. I've probably done that a little here though, generalisations that is, and I apologise if I have. I find the notion that a movement exists that attacks feminism in all of its forms to be really dangerous to society, as well as many of the more reactionary notions pushed by the movement, so I am quite invested in this. I think a lot of your argument is blaming feminists or PC culture when the issues themselves are a little more pressing. Sexual assault or harassment are, in my mind, more important things to tackle than having to think more about our actions, or feel uncomfortable sometimes. That's in my eyes a good thing anyway. I don't think it's really healthy to just act on impulse all of the time. I digress. There are plenty of valid criticisms to use against any political movement, it's when these criticisms are used to try and remove support for the movement or to harass individuals that support it that I think a line is crossed.
- You are talking about this article right? [13] I don't think you can get more reactionary than that --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- "As an ideology this means something different to simply criticising feminism."
- I've always understood of "anti-feminism" as describing the range of views from total opposition against everything feminist (which doesn't automatically mean it's based on any other ideology such as traditionalism, btw) to the opposition against feminist views that exceed general "humanistic Western values" and are specific to feminism. I've also seen it used to describe people who were simply against large portions of feminism, though that's a less precise application of the word.
- "If you read feminist books you'll notice that feminists critique theories by other feminists all the time."
- They do - and, in some cases, the "wrong kind of feminists" are called things like "not serious enough" or "false feminist posing as one", as can be seen in some of the recent reactions to Christina Hoff Summers. So accusations of anti-feminism by feminists when facing opposition, isn't something that's unheard of - and wouldn't be beneath this wiki, which has dismissed various criticisms of feminists as not only anti-feminism but also misogyny, MRA, etc. on various occasions, either. So feminism certainly had a part in creating this misconception.
- "There isn't one consistent ideology of feminism other than one that aims to help promote gender equality"
- If that were true, people saying things like "all sex is rape of women by men" wouldn't be called feminists. Gender equality is one the good side of the feminism spectrum, however, terms like "(by women) for women" are more suitable to describe the general formula of what fits the label - opposing some combination of "male dominance/centricity" (whether it only benefits men, or also hurts them) or "female disadvantage/marginalization" (whether opposed by women, or approved of) is what all feminists have in common; restrictions against going off the rails in the opposite direction, are not.
- "Are these people opposed to the feminist groups like"
- I don't know the specifics, but if they're rational they shouldn't be opposing feminists who make sense, and if they're irrational then a lot of stuff can happen - reading problems into someone's narrative just because they call themselves feminist, ignoring the benign/sensible aspects of feminism, or making no true Scotsman / "moderate Christians" kind of statements. It's natural to feel more comfortable with a homogenous enemy that has a name and can be clearly defined, so some people just surrender to that instinct - there doesn't have to be anything more to it than that, though sometimes there obviously is.
- As to the two MRM articles on suffrage, they're what I consider to be typical "ideologue bullshit" - not really vile or "bigoted", but just making wild connections and leaps of logic, resulting in really weird conclusions and a streamlined, stubborn narrative. The Spearhead one weirdly supports religion (I'm not sure if it actually argues that religion is valid, or just uses it for its own interests), doesn't explain how women voting decreased their representation, let alone led to the seemingly unrelated problems ("problems" as seen through the lense of a traditionalist prudish value system, that is), and assumes this common grandiose theory that "political correctness is part of a master plan to subvert the West" even though it's completely accounted for by people going overboard with trying to protect "marginalized groups", just because there are some who pursue such a plan.
- Clearly the bullshit side of the MRM.
- "Or what about the suffragists"
- However, I've seen other kinds - for instance, GWW argues that suffragists demanded the right to vote without the war duty that came with it at the time, while the men who had only received that right roughly a decade ago were still on that duty. However, unless my brain is completely broken, she doesn't support conscription - her point is merely that the historical suffragettes themselves were a shady movement, and that women at the time were opposed to it mainly out of fear of conscription. She supports the egalitarian system as it is now, but argues that it only works thanks to modern technology and conveniences, and the workman/housewive model was the most sensible and mutually beneficial one a century ago where most labor was hard and physical, and looking after the home was far more demanding than it is now, and one that women tended to prefer. I'm not an expert in history so I can't say how accurate she is, but at least it makes a lot of sense.
- "Why should there be the notion that "bad feminists" detract from the desire to improve things for women anyway?"
- There are certain problems that come with a label containing both good humanistic ideals and toxic ideology under its roof, and some people argue that the "improving things for women" should assume another label. However, views vary, and I don't really think it's that much of a problem - people state their views, and should be judged based on that alone.
- GWW argues that "good feminists" are not a problem, but rather on the fringe and without political power - I think she's exaggerating.
- "sexism is "not that important" if it isn't actively femicide or the complete disregard of women's rights by society"
- Well a lot of things are better than atrocities, so it depends - I think some people having some sexist views here and there isn't that much of a problem, or a tolerable one at least. However, anti-feminists that argue this way often fail to take into account the still potent force of conservatism/traditionalism that votes for things like pro-life (not so much for misogynistic reasons, but still harmful) that needs to be opposed, under whichever label.
- "How many women need to be killed or raped for it to constitute misogyny?"
- Simply misogyny? One, provided a matching motive. "Systemic misogyny" as opposed to "subcultures and scum of society, and maybe the South"? I don't know - but from what I know, the modern West is very far from that.
- "If the movement, at its core, is about promoting women's rights, then why would you oppose that en masse and take that on as an ideology?"
- I haven't counted the bad feminists against the good ones - however, those people argue that the bad ones outweigh the good ones in prominence and power, or that even the harmless ones still propagate "false ideas and worldviews" too frequently; in other words, that there is something worse "at its core".
- The second one makes sense, especially as seen from the lense of the "moderate anti-feminism" as I've described it earlier - whenever feminism stops being about equal rights and opportunity and starts doing "things of its own" (which includes things like specific, questionable takes on reality, or rights for women that result in privileges), it becomes an ideology rather than simply a branch of social activism.
- However, the irrational ones tend to commit the same silly mistake as many feminists - by saying that if you're pro equal rights just like them, but are so under the wrong label, then there's somehow a problem with you since you're part of "the wrong mentality". Those people just see things in a... simpler way. Less complicated :)
- "but I have no idea why people spend careers critiquing feminism in all of its forms."
- Hmm, I don't roll with people who think like that (and by "roll" I mean "watch their stuff on the internet"), so I don't know. If that's really what they think, they're irrational at best (true Scotsmen etc.) and ideologues like the Spearhead at worst (well, there's worse things than Spearhead, but you get what I'm saying).
- "In my eyes one of the aims of feminism is to deconstruct the notion that men are always perpetrators and women are always victims."
- When you look at different forms of feminism on the one hand, and different forms of traditionalism on the other, you'll find a curious phenomenon - a bizarre ball of wibbly-wobbly in which certain notions can leap from the one "side" to the other with more ease than electrons jump between energy levels.
- This is due to the fact that chivalry towards women is part of "traditionalism", and feminism also focuses on protecting women. So you've got feminist A who finds traditionalist chivalry condescending or even oppressive because it portrays women as weak, and then you've got feminist B who tells men to essentially treat women with velvet gloves because she's oppressed / not conditioned by society to be as rough and horny as men, which is then... perceived by others, especially women, to be condescending and painting the picture of women as weak and fragile. Feminist A may be opposed to B on the same grounds, or she may not. In some cases, both are merged into one, giving way to a wibbly-wobbly ball of cognitive dissonance.
- One "traditionalist" view is of men as tough and women as fragile - feminists don't like that! Unless they're Gail Dines and think that society has made boys rough and horny, and the innocent, fragile girls who just want romance and friendship and interesting conversations don't know how to deal with that. Sounds awfully similar to a common stereotype, doesn't it?
- It's a fact that portraying men as perpetrators and women as victims is a notion perpetuated by many a feminist - snippy memes like "yeah, cause hurting your fingers while crushing her face is being a victim of domestic violence" are commonplace, as are statistics about women having to fear violent assault much, much more than men (which doesn't match the police statistics I've seen). And if I'm not terribly misinformed, similar attitudes about domestic violence existed in like the beginning of the 20th century and earlier. Whether it's "men are strong lol" or "men are oppressors! privilege blindness!", the conclusions show an eery resemblance of each other.
- Some feminists oppose this notion, passionately, because it's gender stereotyping and also steeped in the traditionalism that feminism was born to overcome!
- Others take the "male dominance" part of traditionalism, claim that entitled wife beating was rampant before feminism arrived at the scene (to which extent that is true, and to which the chivalry is, I'm honestly confused atm), and is still a problem, leading to the notion that... men are perpetrators and women the victims, and people who say otherwise are trying to undermine feminism or something.
- Some feminists say that women have a strength disadvantage which is why they're more on the receiving side, others deny any such strength disadvantages... it's a mess, really.
- So when you keep all that mind, all that's left is reasonable people (feminists or not) who oppose to such irrational ideas on the one hand, and irrational simpletons that dismiss you if you wear the wrong label / refuse to assume the right one, on the other.
- However, back to the original point - feminism had a part in creating this image (or rather giving new life to it, though it's more of a wheel reinvention), and some continually struggle to increase it because "the public is in denial about the extent". It's a good thing that others under this label do the opposite.
- "men's rights movement stating"
- Add the MRM as a third party to said wibbly-wobbly - some of them are pro-traditionalist and pro-patriarchy, others against it; and both, though especially the latter camp, have certain traits in common with certain parts of feminism, while being decisively opposed to others.
- Pro-equality feminists and pro-equality MRAs should technically see eye to eye - and some do, however, accusations of insincerity are rampant in both directions. They also should be more opposed / acknowledging of their respective evil twins, which doesn't happen nearly enough from what I've seen (they're adopted).
- "Sexual assault or harassment are, in my mind, more important things to tackle than having to think more about our actions, or feel uncomfortable sometimes."
- They are, however, when feminists start throwing around these kinds of accusations around like confetti, or stretch the definitions of those words, it is a problem that should be opposed - lest these ideas spread to general society, which is already brainwashed with false notions of "misogyny" or "objectification" to a significant extent. However, I'd much rather see all this bullshit opposed by people outside of either ideology/label, as those things breed idiocy and extremism all too easily. Anti-feminists are preferable to MRAs, but defining oneself as being opposed to ideology X, can easily end up being dogmatic itself - which is what I've frequently observed happening.
- At any rate, I've rambled for long enough now - but my conclusion is that calling the MRM reactionary and feminism progressive, is simplifying things way too much. Elements of the MRM are reactionary while others could be described as "progressive" (those who advocate for female conscription, for instance), while elements of feminism might as well be reactionary, and some of their ideas of "progress" are just as questionable.
- "You are talking about this article right?"
- Aye, that one! Thanks!
- Hmm, it's actually slightly less reactionary than I had remembered - I thought the implication at the end there that if this keeps up, patriarchy might have to arrive to save the day once more, was somewhat stronger; it also didn't say anything about the decadence of Rome (probably remembered it that way thanks to that picture at the top LOL).
- Anyway, the "reactionary" part is merely implied, and filtered through disclaimers such as "maybe women would've done the same, I DON'T KNOW!", so it definitely gets much more reactionary than that - however, it sure is full of pompous nonsense all over the place: moral/sexual prudishness to make any parents group proud, whining about the downsides of individual freedom and responsibility that seems about as far removed from the small government / free-market right-wring as it gets (contrast with Bernard Chapin), and the marginalization of female accomplishment / power in the modern day.
- Most hilariously, the author seems to have actually bought into this idea that feminism = equal rights of opportunity and nothing else (even though he strangely uses "feminism" interchangeably with "matriarchy"... yet clearly doesn't think modern society is a matriarchy), which would make it ironic if he then went on criticize other elements of the MRM for being too liberal / feminism-influenced. He's so immersed in the idea that feminism is responsible for this inferior egalitarian society (as opposed to someone like GWW, who I think argues that it came about naturally, rather than merely having been enabled by nature) that he can't see all the other (real) problems with it, some of which are actually ambitions to subvert this same society. Guess it all looks like Asians to him from where he's standing :D
- I might have to check out whether men back then were really all fine with hard labor and providing - they certainly aren't now LOL, which includes other sections of the MRM incidentally. And it ain't due to feminism, it's due to human nature.
- I know they weren't all fine with going to war - conscription was often involuntary, and it seems like they weren't particularly into that WW1 business, judging by the White Feather Compaign. I'm also not quite sure how the fact that some feminists and suffragettes joined said campaign fits into his narrative, but that's neither here nor there.
- Anyway, I feel like I'm kinda preaching to the choir here when criticizing this article, so I'll better stop now :) 93.223.13.154 (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- At this point I think we both have fairly set views and I'm not going to preach to you again about my views on anti-feminism. My personal beliefs on the matter are very much informed by life experience and it's hard to express some of these in this context. Back to your last point, I think one thing that the men's rights movement is doing is blaming issues that are largely due to class on feminism. This is very divisive and makes it difficult for any kind of significant social change to happen. I personally don't think that men should have been the only ones working, or that they should have had to work so hard when the majority of their earnings went to their employers. I don't blame men for not being happy, they shouldn't have been. Life wasn't good for most men, it has been almost exclusively terrible. That is, for the majority of men. It was just also very bad for women, probably worse, or at least terrible in a very different way. Women were treated like property, with marriage contracts designed to force them into submission to their husbands, often without any possibility of leaving. The reason for this is most likely to ensure that men knew that their children were their own. I don't know how these things happened but I do blame religion to some degree for it. Either way, I do believe that men and women have both been treated horrifically for centuries. I just think that the gendered framework doesn't work when considering men's problems in the same way that it does for women's. The men's rights movement should be socialism --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Mine aren't "set", they're just the way they are right now based on my (rather fragmental) impressions so far.
- Anyway, posting cause I just remembered another stupid point that Spearhead article made and had to bring it up... they cite Muslims and Mexicans as "patriarchal cultures that breed well", however they forget to mention that that neither, on average, exactly comprise the elite of the society they're in. They breed well, cause patriarchy works; they've got lots of poverty and crime, but that's definitely for other reason - establishing a patriarchy would result in good babymaking, as shown with these immigrant demographics, and it'd also result in a prosperous society, as I'm sure it'd happen anyway. Typical "narrative creation" there, completely reliant on the reader's glassy eyed acceptance to hold up.
- Anyway, just had to add that :) 93.223.7.59 (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- At this point I think we both have fairly set views and I'm not going to preach to you again about my views on anti-feminism. My personal beliefs on the matter are very much informed by life experience and it's hard to express some of these in this context. Back to your last point, I think one thing that the men's rights movement is doing is blaming issues that are largely due to class on feminism. This is very divisive and makes it difficult for any kind of significant social change to happen. I personally don't think that men should have been the only ones working, or that they should have had to work so hard when the majority of their earnings went to their employers. I don't blame men for not being happy, they shouldn't have been. Life wasn't good for most men, it has been almost exclusively terrible. That is, for the majority of men. It was just also very bad for women, probably worse, or at least terrible in a very different way. Women were treated like property, with marriage contracts designed to force them into submission to their husbands, often without any possibility of leaving. The reason for this is most likely to ensure that men knew that their children were their own. I don't know how these things happened but I do blame religion to some degree for it. Either way, I do believe that men and women have both been treated horrifically for centuries. I just think that the gendered framework doesn't work when considering men's problems in the same way that it does for women's. The men's rights movement should be socialism --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Anyway, I feel like I'm kinda preaching to the choir here when criticizing this article, so I'll better stop now :) 93.223.13.154 (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
[edit] This article is way off base
Hello
I’m an MRA, and I thought I’d send you a message about your articles on the MRA movement and circumcision. I find them grossly misinformed and horrible biased. I’ve made several threads in the talk sections of both pages, and was told that they would be considered for future edits.
For starters, your circumcision article is, quite frankly, awful. Circumcision is a horrible practice, as it constitutes genital mutilation. It causes significant nerve damage and loss of sexual pleasure, and kills thousands of boys every year.
I find that you ignore the many studies that DO conclude circumcision causes a loss of sexual pleasure- I included them in my talk section piece. The foreskin is highly erogenous tissue with thouands of miessners corpuscle and bulbocavernosus nerve endings. It is 100% certain that removing these removes sexual pleasure.
You also ignore male genital mutilation in Africa which IS comparable to FGM in everyway that could possibly apply. Broken bottles and knives are often used, and thousands of boys die every year. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/in-south-africa-circumcision-ritual-becomes-health-crisis/ http://ulwaluko.co.za/Photos.html
Defending circumcision is not in anyway rational. Saying circumcision isn’t bad because FGM is worse is not in anyway rational either- it’s like saying cutting off a finger isn’t bad because cutting off the entire hand is worse. FGM has nothing to do with circumcision, and the article on circumcision should not be about FGM, it should be about circumcision.
For feminists to defend a practice that permanently reduces sexual pleasure is sickening, and the opposite of rational.
Your analysis on the men’s rights movement is also way off base, and completely misleading. You ignore many of the most important issues, such programs for low-income people excluding men, or higher pension ages for men in many countries. I was going to make edits, but I found that I would have had to delete the entire page and start again because it was so biased.
I’d be happy to discuss this further, if you like. — Unsigned, by: 212.159.124.6 / talk / contribs
- No thanks? Hipocrite (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- You're talking about two different issues here, slow down. I personally don't know too much about circumcision, but I don't think you're correct that the movement have started any programs for low-income men or to improve pension ages. At least, if they do exist, I'm not aware of them. Could you provide some links? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- The guy's spamming this text about. He also hit a random comment of mine on Reddit - David Gerard (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no doubt that RationalWiki's articles are not without their shortcomings. Much of the MRA page is written without regard to the MRA policy of gender equality. It's also noticeable that this website lacks a page on gender egalitarianism; the gender struggle isn't a battle between feminists and MRAs, they're both working towards a common goal and shouldn't be treated like opposite ends of a spectrum. MRAs aren't patriarchials and vice versa with feminists. 121.75.83.92 (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Problem is most current MRAs seem to enjoy hating on women or bemoaning their loss of privilege more than promoting gender equality, which is unfortunate for real issues males face. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 12:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- I swear MRAs spend more time telling people online that they are about gender equality or that feminism isn't than actually trying to improve the lives of people of any gender. It is only seems like "a battle between MRAs and feminists" because the men's rights movement acts as a reactionary antifeminist movement --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hilariously, our society's concept of privilege, homophobia and misogyny works against them. When I tell people that MRA's exist, they usually laugh at them and call them "Betas/F*ggots/B*tches/etc". They can't be taken seriously.--BlackProg (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- My favourite thing is when they claim that entire schools of academic thought are "corrupted by feminism" without any sense of irony --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hilariously, our society's concept of privilege, homophobia and misogyny works against them. When I tell people that MRA's exist, they usually laugh at them and call them "Betas/F*ggots/B*tches/etc". They can't be taken seriously.--BlackProg (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- You talk about the GM happening in Africa as if the US and MRA's can control it. While FGM is illegal in the USA, it's still very legal and a common practice in other countries. We can't control what other countries do. Shatto (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Restraining orders
Would restraining orders be considered an MRA issue? See for example http://restrainingorderabuse.com/tag/violence-against-women-act/ Landmartian (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Wow. "Don't prevent me from stalking" has to rank up there with stupid shit that MRAs conjure. Ikanreed (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Removed quotation marks
Removed quotation marks from around word "goal". They served no purpose. Keep Rationalwiki as unbiased as it is possible. — Unsigned, by: 62.65.221.1 / talk / contribs 08:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Straw men
Even taking the "2% of accusations are false" at face value, which isn't completely clear, it seems a bit unfair to be quite so dismissive of false accusations. They do in fact do an immense amount of damage to everyone involved, not the least of which is the falsely accused person. An administrator at Dartmouth University was seriously applauded for asking "Why can't we expel someone based on an allegation?", and the UVA fiasco should illustrate just how much people are willing to swallow if it aligns with their narrative. For a non-campus example, look at what happened to Connor Oberst; a lot of self-identified feminists seriously criticized him for standing up to an allegation which was complete bullshit. Although views like this aren't altogether the majority, they are out there and someone needs to challenge them. That a lot of MRAs then turn this into the "all women are liars" doesn't negate the legitimate point they may have, so my suggestion would be to take 2-3 sentences to explain that their objections to false accusations has some grounding in reality and then tear them apart for their ridiculous excesses on the matter. I would also support taking a little more space to point out some of the more hysterical MRA ranting about the same subjects (e.g. the aforementioned UVA fiasco, which attracted plenty of misogyny in addition to reasonable criticism), so as to distinguish the valid points from the ranting. 24.186.49.177 (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)