Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive7

Typo
''Men actually pay less for health insurance, but more for auto and life insurance. Bus men are getting cheaper health insurance'' -but men are...

Also:

One explanation is that we have created a society in which the valued traits in men are stereotypical masculinity, such as strength, stoicism, and ability to defend oneself from a weaker woman, so society will naturally step up to protect the "weak" woman against the "macho" abuser. -In short, this is a case of misdirected rage, macho culture is the problem, not feminism. PatriotismOverProfits (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So you make a 700-character edit to a talk page about a one-character typo you could have fixed yourself? Well on your way to becoming a valued contributor, I see.... PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 03:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is locked. That means I can't fix it myself. Have a nice day :). 09:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It has been semi-protected, which means that it can't be edited by unregistered and newly registered users. You'll be able to edit it once you gather a few more edits.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the bus/but thing. The second part about macho culture, I'm not sure what you want there. 14:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Talk to Civic Cat  20:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) "- some anti-feminist sects of MRAs push the idea that there are definitive differences in ability between women and men that suggest women should not be competing with men for various jobs (although it is apparently all right with them for men to be more socially allowed to be child care givers, school teachers, or maids without stigma)." What is this trying to say?
 * 2) "application of laws in divorce courts, custody casesm and a few other legal venues." Is "casesm" a word or is it a misspelling of "cases?"
 * 3) Why is it called "female genital cutting?" Isn't mutilation a better word?
 * 4) I heard of a guy having to pay child support even when it turned out that he didn't father the child. Each gender has the advantage I suppose. Men don't get pregnant—it's how they got away with all that screwing around since antiquity. Women now get to abort or not abort—it's their womb and he gave her the sperm (new meaning to the term "gave it to her" huh). Guys don't like it, all they have to do is to convince a bunch of politicians how they should change the laws so we'll have a society where the state pays more welfare to the pregnant lady so guys like MRA activists won't have to pay anything. Keep in mind, Miss Porn-fantasy-woman won't sue for support.
 * 5) What's that Specials song about how a woman got pregnant? "She's got him where she wants him and forgot to take the pill. Now he's hoping she'll be happy when she's hanging out the nappies. If that's a happy marriage I prefer to be...,unhappy !! ."
 * That MRAs like men to have access to traditionally feminine roles, but not for women to have access to traditionally male roles.
 * "cases," - why don't you correct typos when you see them?
 * Because it involves cutting, perhaps? Both terms are used in the article.  Not sure what you are looking for here.
 * This isn't a question.
 * I don't know.  20:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what I was thinking. I just figured that they couldn't be that inconsistent.
 * Is it a typo? I was wondering if it was some sort of Latin term. I figured it was a typo but wanted to make sure.
 * Not sure either. Thought I'd mention it though.
 * Correct. It was not a question. Civic Cat sig 2.PNG Talk to Civic Cat   21:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually Weaseloid, I remember you giving me a little shit for editting on what I thought was a typo here.Civic Cat sig 2.PNG Talk to Civic Cat   01:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Should we mention the "sitcoms and commercials" thing?
I mean, you hear it all the time. If you ask me, these are kinda problems- but are obviously not due to feminism, and obviously are NOT proof that men are more oppressed. So, do we need to mention this, or just leave it? Impurity is the secret Unite with thy oracle 00:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In what way do sitcoms and commercials relate to the Men's Rights Movement? (also, why isn't the article title completely capitalized??) Nullahnung (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A common MRA talking point is that in sitcoms and commercials, men are always the butt of the jokes, while women are depicted as the more clever, down to earth people. Which, at least in ads, might have some truth to it. Anyway, while I agree this is a common MRA sentiment, it might be a bit difficult to source it. If it just comes up now and then on their forums and the like, then it could be difficult to find something definite to link to. Octo8 (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I could get you some screenshots of them talking about it on forums or Facebook or Twitter. But I don't think anyone in the "core" (as it were) has written full articles on it. It's more a case of individual whining. But it is an interesting topic to address because while it is a problem - in so much that stereotyping people is a problem because it's stereotyping people - it's often a qualitatively different thing. For instance, there's a bit of a grump over the Diet Coke adverts because it's objectifying men, but do these people really want to bring that up next to every single Lynx/Axe advert from the last few decades, every music video since the concept was born, and the myriad magazines aimed at men that obsess over tits, tits and nothing but the tits? Because, you know, no one is going to come out of making that argument still looking good. And while the quantitative differences are immense, the actual qualitative differences are equally staggering. The average "sitcom dad" might be the bumbling buffoon, but he's still the head of the house while the "sitcom mom" is subservient to that. In the Diet Coke adverts, the men aren't forced or coerced into taking their shirts off but do it by choice, and are just presented as something for the women to look at rather than be an eventual prize for them to take home, not to mention the fac that 50% of that advert is selling a particular lifestyle - while in those deodorant adverts you have women literally brainwashed into liking your Joe-Average that has used the product. The differences in the quality of the "sexism" portrayed against men and women in the media are so marked that you cannot possibly come down on the side of "men are hard done by in the media" when you bother to look at take in the evidence.
 * But the last time I explained that all to someone who made that whine, they happily ignored it and went on to declare victory anyway because "no one can address my points". Which tells you everything you need to know about the mentality of people who bring it up. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 11:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. However, I agree with MoD that we should mention it- we could say essentially everything you just said, because, I must say, you really hit that one out of the park. Trapped inside this octavarium 08:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

People I don't really want to have to write about
Government Gets Girlfriends. Too nuts even for Manboobz. His Reddit AMA gets right to the point with the first question - David Gerard (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Already mentioned at webshites. 18:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Woah, this comment is pure crazy gold. Not that wanting to murder his mother for not having sex with him is terribly sane either. --Kels (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow. This is the first time I've ever encountered the notion of "incel" as an identity position. I am generally an advocate of (leftist) identity politics -- as long as people are being oppressed/persecuted/marginalized because of their race/gender/sexual orientation/etc, I think claiming the terms of that oppression as a way to undo it is a viable and valuable political strategy (while noting the tension inherent in the fact that it also reproduces/reinforces/reifies the very social constructs being used to oppress people). But making one's inability to get laid into a subject position with which to make a political claim? If it wasn't linked to such a horrifying bunch of men, I would find it laughable. TeenageWasteland (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yet another reason to add to the list of why sex-separated systems are shit and every normal school should be co-ed. People never learn how to socialize with the opposite sex and then they get silly ideas about how hard it allegedly is to talk to the opposite sex. (Yes, this is just my gut speaking.) Nullahnung (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * His mother refused to fuck him when he asked, further demonstrating the loathsome duplicity of womankind - David Gerard (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

He showed up here briefly a few months ago to complain about edits referring to him by (what may or may not be) his real name. 21:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

"I don't like to think in terms of "valid" and "moral". I know it seems unlikely now but if Norweigans were to ever become a minority in their own country Breivik might be considered a hero one day. Who knows?" - governmentsgetgirlfriends

Oh for Pete's s... I have better things to do with my life than read this kind of shit. Nullahnung (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * governmentsgetgirlfriends.wordpress.com is no longer available.
 * The authors have deleted this site.
 * Heh. Octo8 (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Snark versus whine
There seems to be a distinct lacking of the former in this article, and a sad quantity of the latter. Rational disagreement is inevitable. Pedestrian wit is inexcusable. --Drang (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Seriously. "Macho Patriarchal" is being thrown around here like "Imperialist-Capitalist" at a North Korean film festival. --Drang (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. In parcular the supposed MRA issues go way too much in to the strawman, even when digging up the crazy is kind of the point of the wiki. I was going to do a fancy abridged translation of Henry Laasanen's top ten equality problems of men to help someone fluent in English move the article to a more realistic direction, but my phone lost the text. Henry Laasanen is a Finnish C-list celebrity, author of a book on sexual market value, and most prominently, a blogger. Since my phone sucks you will get an even shorter translation.

1. Blatant gender imbalance in the leadership of (most shockingly governmental) equality organizations.

2. Conscription

3. The poor condition of the men doing the worst (relative to women, tying into point one)

4. Lack of research into these male issues from a gender perspective. Dearth of qualified experts. (he would scoff at most things "pro-feminist", but there is simply very little anything available)

5. Custody disputes

6. The poor educational results of boys and men (the commentary on this is probably the lowest point of the current article)

7. Men's health. %50 more spent on women's healthcare.

8. Dangerous lives - higher rate of work deaths and work accidents and suicides

9. Feminists discourses dominate (bunch of objections to the theory of patriarchy)

10. Expection of masculinity

Now of course I am not suggesting you use this as is, but I hope you can see that at the very least there should be more commentary on the anti-feminist sentiment. And the article's rant on education totally misses the point that people are rambling because stats show that the educational system is performing very poorly on males. Having something like that in there makes you suspicious of all the rebuttals the article has. -81.175.238.65 (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of those things are the products of patriarchal culture which was largely shaped by men. MRAs railing against feminism as the source of their woes are badly missing the mark.  01:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In order to be a valid theory and not inherently a fallacy it MUST be falsifiable. You can not claim Patriarchy helps men, hurts men, helps women, and hurts women. Shadowex3 (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be true under your stated conditions, but you're setting up a false dichotomy. It's possible for a theory to hurt and help different groups to different degrees. - Grant (Talk) 03:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In addition, nobody has ever tried to quantify "harm". That would be silly. The simple truth is that the sexism in society (i.e. "the Patriarchy") sometimes helps men (by giving them an undeserved competitive edge over women in careers, for example) and sometimes hurts men. Do men end up with a net gain or a net loss? That is completely unquantifiable, and it is also completely irrelevant. Trying to add up disadvantages men and women suffer due to sexism against each other is a fool's game, as is trying to play victim olympics. The best solution is to get rid of all those disadvantages - both those for women and those for men. Now, the problem with MRAs is that they use the disadvantages men suffer as mere talking points against feminism. They are not actually interested in those issues, only at using them to bitch at feminism. Even though without feminism, many of those issues still would exist - conscription and expectations of masculinity are clearly the results of patriarchal sexism and have nothing to do with feminism. In fact, that expectations of masculinity have considerably lessened over the past generations, to the benefit of men, that has a lot to do with feminism! Octo8 (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The claim is that it is rather easy to point out male problems that are not being addressed by feminists that would be entirely in position to do so. You are not really responding to that. --81.175.238.65 (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not entirely wrong. But that doesn't mean feminism as an ideology/concept is wrong. It also doesn't mean that MRAs truly do something about these points, instead of merely using them as talking points against feminism. Octo8 (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But it certainly would mean that as a man you would be rather naive to vote for a feminist, or honestly endorse the movement. Unless you want get shafted, that is. --81.175.238.65 (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of us actually have, you know, ethics, instead of just self-interest. And you're wrong, in any case. Most of the complaints you list at the beginning are the product of patriarchy. If the patriarchy is weakened, then that benefits men as well. Feminists may fail to specifically engage the points of disadvantage men currently face in society. But Feminism, the release from gendered constrictions, is beneficial for everybody. Because fuck all those people who think they can define what a "real man" is. Octo8 (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the complaints are the result of (I reiterate) it being rather easy to point out male problems that are not being addressed by feminists that would be entirely in position to do so. I hope you realize how wonderfully Orwellian you are sounding in the context of that. It really reinforces the point here. --81.175.238.65 (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Look, I understand what you're trying to say- there are quite a few issues relating men's rights. But what you need to understand is that, while feminism may not necessarily always directly address them, i.e. by going "X is happening to men, we must stop X", the aim of feminism is essentially equality all around, by getting rid of the patriarchy- so while they don't go "We must stop [issue relating to men's rights]" as much as they would with, say rape culture (I mean, it is called feminism), by getting rid of the patriarchy, they will indirectly stop, or reduce the occurence, of all of those bad. I mean, I'm a man. I don't want to be raped or domestically abused by a woman and have it not accepted as rape or abuse. I don't want to lose my kid if I get a divorce. I don't want to have to be expected to be manly. I just want to be treated as equal to anybody else- which is what most feminism is, and what most MRAs aren't, offering. Impurity is the secret Unite with thy oracle Dolan.png 01:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If feminism does not directly address problems then it is a curious thing that feminism is a platform on which you can get to a position meant for directly addressing problems. This is a shameless cop out. --82.128.250.221 (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No one's got a response? I'll start editing the article myself once I start feeling like I have too much free time, which won't be anytime soon, but still. --82.128.250.221 (talk) 10:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Response to what? You didn't really ask a question. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 11:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to read the article to get it. I still haven't forgotten about this site, btw. This will probably be a summer project. --82.128.250.221 (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * From what I read in the section at the bottom of this page, it would appear that as far as MRA's a re concerned, a "real man" is some reject who's so scared of women that he can never get his dick wet and wants the government to supply him with subsidized prostitutes while he whines about being "involuntarily celibate." That's a real manly-man right there. TeenageWasteland (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't take one guy to represent a whole movement. There are extremes everywhere. Nullahnung (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * True, but sometimes the entire movement is like that. See the Tea Party as another example. Octo8 (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that isn't necessarily the case here. A helluva lot of them are like that, but there are quite a few "good" and "almost good" ones- take the GMF, for example. And even of the "bad" ones, I have met a couple who were open to debate and were willing to accept they were wrong. But anyway, yeah, for the most part they're not that great. Impurity is the secret Unite with thy oracle Dolan.png 13:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't just trying to issue a blanket judgement of how bad these MRA losers are. That's painfully obvious. I was really struck by how they're making claims as straight men, and are yet totally unable to one of the main things that is definitional to being a straight man--have sexual relationships with women--because they're too intimidated by women. They define a "real man" by something they can't do. That's just fucked. Unlike the guy who made the blog post in question, who is pretty much unfucked and unfuckable, it would seem. TeenageWasteland (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Painfully obvious" it wasn't and still isn't. You still seem like you're issuing blanket statements. Who is "they"? That one guy? Nullahnung (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess, as I kinda said above, that the specific critique is directed at a group of people I didn't now existed until I read that one guy's blog post, the so-called "incels," people who try to translate their inability to get laid into a political position to make whiny claims. Does that guy with the blog speak to a larger audience of like-minded people? Then I'm talking about them. Does he speak only to himself? Then I withdraw my comments. But given the 600,000 Google hits I get from searching for "incel," (not a huge number, as these things go, but not insignificant, either), I imagine there are more than a couple of these manly examples of rugged, virile, male masculinity walking around. TeenageWasteland (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Incoming?
Someone posted a link on /r/MensRights, so there may be visitors. On the other hand, that was about 11 hours ago and nobody has shown up, so...--ZooGuard (talk) 08:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * For us, it was Tuesday - David Gerard (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

IMO this article does not frame MRA arguments correctly.
I understand this is a POV site, so the sort of "feminist rebuttals" are understandable. But I see some of them say things like "this is a valid complaint that men have, but it's because of patriarchy/macho-culture/traditionalism/whatever, not feminism".

The single most important aspect of the MRA worldview is that feminist culture IS mainstream culture. Most, if not all, MRA's suggest that patriarchy is not a credible theory - many even suggest that it rests upon revisionist history and an incorrect understanding of male behavioral tendencies, and should be dismissed out of hand. They would prefer the term "traditionalism" when referring to the way things used to be, and most reject its viability as well, claiming that it placed limits on men and women equally but in different ways. Virtually all MRA's see women as the default architects of the social/cultural sphere, and most suggest that they've always had control (in that sphere) that was at least equal to that of men. On the largest scale, they see feminism as having near unilateral control over Western culture, particularly via censorship privileges, save for a few spaces they've overlooked for one reason or another (namely, the internet due to its anonymity, and the more nerdy pursuits of men due to them being so nerdy).

In short, to an MRA, feminism = mainstream culture; whichever word is used, the MRA hears the exact same thing.

I'm sure many here would disagree with this idea, but it should probably at least be in the article, prominently featured, for purposes of intellectual fairness. Even if that view is met with its own rebuttal.


 * Good point. We could just state that, though it'd be way better to have something citable to this efffect - David Gerard (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hm. Correct for the main point - MRAs do think that modern society is built by and for women, and that even before modernity women's 'special status' meant that they basically bent culture around them. But I'm not so sure about MRAs seeing traditional society as not viable. In my experience, much of MRA ideology is in fact based on going back there, towards an entirely imagined 'juster' balance between the sexes. Octo8 (talk) 08:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's quite an interisting article I found. Written by someone I don't agree with but that's irrelavent as they characterise modern MRAs differently to original MRAs and outline that MRAs are,these days, not traditionalists:
 * http://seculartraditionalism.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/why-mra-should-support-traditionalism/
 * Again, I need to stress this as I know how some people get. I do NOT support this references view, but use it as a way to show how MRAs are characterised in this persons opinion.
 * This one is probably better: http://bonald.wordpress.com/2011/11/06/so-traditionalists-and-mrm-cant-work-together-after-all/ Hobby (talk) 08:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is another one: http://www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentrism/breaking-the-pendulum-tradcons-vs-feminists/
 * Got about half way through. seems pretty interesting so far, but I gotta run. I'd certainly look at including that as a view of the organisation as a whole rather than focusing on individuals hateful comments (which you can do about any organisation). Hobby (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Elliot Rodger
I disagree with Zooguard - this asshole is, sadly, highly relevant. (He may have self-categorised as "incel", he just uh hung out in MRA forums and used MRA jargon.) I have redlinked because, sadly, we need a good article on him. Anyone feel up to dredging through the ick to write one? - David Gerard (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Which MRA forums? PUAHate is an incel hangout. The "manosphere" is not equivalent to the men's rights movement, and not every internet mysoginist is a "MRA". FFSMS, people, know your enemies, don't just play by ear, and don't hand the people who seek pretext to dismiss you legitimate ammunition.
 * And yeah, the MRM's response to the murders is fucked up, but not in the way currently described in the article.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I know nothing about the relationships, rivalries, etc. between different groups in the "manosphere," and I am not privey to the debates between the various factions in the wake of the murders. But there's no doubt that Rodger's acts drew lots of mass critical attention to the MRA movement from MSM sources who rarely if ever covered it--even if in doing so, they glossed over the subtleties between the different branches of masculinism. An article about Rodger should link him and the murders to MRA for that reason alone. Father Vivian O&#39;Blivion (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't object to ER being covered. I object to the current crappy write-up. Its description of the "MRA" reaction is Proxima-level wrong.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, if you know enough to critique it, you probably know enough to fix it. I don't. Father Vivian O&#39;Blivion (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (shudder) that's pretty wrong. Anyway, Sophie's going to have a hack at a main article on the dear boy - David Gerard (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As a reader, it's worth noting that RW gets pretty fast and loose in it's use of terms (this is not just here at RW Goes to the Feminists land) like "manosphere" "mra" etc., using them interchangeably. It gets kinda confusing, and maybe we should have some better "soft policy"/guidelines for what termss to use, when.  One tin soldier (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting point. It's sometimes hard to tell as the content of both is hugely similar, the only difference being that MRA's spend their time arguing with women on the internet, whilst PUA's try to sleep with them. They both use the same arguments against feminists but MRA's seem to be the only group that engages with them directly.
 * As an example, try to work out which of the following is from a PUA article (Return of Kings), and which is from an MRA article (A Voice for Men):
 * "Tell her that she isn’t interesting, that her soul is dog-shit and that she has nothing to offer other than boobs and booty, that she is a piece of shit and a total failure as a human being, that you don’t find her attractive and that she isn’t even good enough to be a cum-bucket"
 * "Women are capable of a stitled form of communication that cannot convey real meaning, only emotional states"
 * The answer may surprise you --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not necessarily suggesting that we try to suss out which site belongs to which nutjob class, I'm more suggesting that maybe we should use the blanket term "manosphere" when we mean "all those fedora wearing idiots", and only use MRA or PUA when the site specifically references itself as such (more appropriate in PUA land), or when the majority of non-member readership says "yeah, that's a pretty typical MRA site".
 * In my opinion, this MRA stuff is very new to lots of folks just learning about it from the recent murders. As manboobz (now mammoth hunters) will tell you, curious people are flocking to sites that say "here's what an mra is, what it isn't, and why you should care. BUT, those sites (again, as the great Dave will remind us) are so jargon happy, it's a hard initiation at first.
 * For me, the responsible attitude is to list all of the relevant terms (and descriptions, at least once in an article) until those terms become common place outside of the small world of places like RW who delight in watching and mocking the idiots. Yes, i'm rambling. sorry.One tin soldier (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the latest phrasing by ZooGuard has the most useful information in it, covering all the nuances of the issue in a compact way. Nullahnung (talk) 09:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * On second thought, it is almost identical in text as this article: 2014 Isla Vista killings, which is already linked... deleting all of it now, we do not need duplicate material. Nullahnung (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's almost identical, because I copied it there. The original intro of that article was also based on the summary here, so I decided to update it. The article in question is supposed to expand, so the intro will be only a small part of its contents.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I copied the text over as a basic start to hang other stuff on. Unfortunately I was very tired last night and couldn't add in the MRA comments that the article needs. Sophie  Wilder silverbrain.png 10:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Question from genuine ignorance
....an ignorance part of me would really rather keep, in that every single thing I've read about and by these people makes me ill, but: to what extent is it useful to see MRA/INCEL/PUA as disctinct phenomena? Is it not possible to subscribe to all three idologies? Are they really distinct categories, or are they best thought of as different aspects/perspectives of something larger and more unified? Can we draw useful parallels between the relationship between those categories, and, say, the relationships between KKK-style white supremacism and racist skinhead culture, which each have their own disctint history and culture but who have enough in common that it makes sense to see them as particular facets of a broader organized racist activism? Father Vivian O&#39;Blivion (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's really very useful. Now they're attempting to delineate themselves, but the blobs all mix heavily. I've added "technically" to the article - David Gerard (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Useful for what purpose? And the delineation part is a bit funny - the fact that some people think of them as all being parts of the "manosphere" doesn't necessarily mean that they see themselves that way. For example, I wonder how the atheists on RW would react to being lumped together with the average regulars of /r/atheism.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Distinct categories, with varying overlap in membership (no caps in "incel", BTW - it comes from "involuntary(ly) celibate", it's not an initialism). A way to describe the relationship would be "convergent evolution, with some cross-pollination of ideas". They have traits in common, such as a general disdain for feminism and misogyny at varying levels of literalness, but they all come to it from different directions. The MRM fancies itself to be the male counterpart of feminism - fighting for male issues, etc. PUAs/the "seduction community" can be seen as a bizarre male-centered outgrowth of self-help focused on having sex with women. There's some minor overlap in membership, but it's chiefly among the rank-and-file, not the big names. There's a bigger overlap between MRAs and MGTOW. Incels and loveshy are a somewhat different kettles of fish: the communities self-identify by shared personal characteristics, not ideology, though this hasn't prevented from developing one - even self-identifying as "incel" means that one buys into the idea that there is such thing as "involuntary celibacy" that doesn't involve being shackled into a basement with a chastity belt. Their attitude towards PUAs, MRAs and MGTOWs varies. PUAHate, the forum ER frequented and was taken down after the murders, was an anti-PUA forum populated by people who had bought at least partially into PUA's attitude towards women, but hated them for the fact that PUA tricks don't work as advertised (big surprise) or because PUAs are more "successful" with women than them. Etc, etc.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But when talking about them, not in the abstract, but in the day to day, does that distinction matter? Fine for a wiki to define it, but if, say, our shooter from the prior weekend were to talk about his views of women, it would be near to impossible to put him into a basket other than one he self-identified as.  Just like, do neo nazi and kkk really subscribe to enough differences to make the distinction matter in talking about Joe the racist who shaved his head and goes to various racist rallies?One tin soldier (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The distinction matters if one is using a term identifying a specific group to refer to the more general phenomenon. If you don't want to go into distinctions, I suggest using words that describe the specific problems in their behavior or ideas. In your example, "racist" or "white supremacist" would be appropriate, instead of calling the skinhead a clansman. In the case of the "manosphere" inhabitants... "misogynist", "anti-feminist", "male supremacist", "pro-patriarchal" (for those who explicitly advocate a patriarchal society, e.g. fundies), "entitled asshole", "rape apologist"...--ZooGuard (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm personally trying to use the word Manosphere as frequently as possible rather than men's rights or pick-up artist forums after reading about some people complaining that the 'Mano' part was too camp for their liking. It also gets rid of the idea that if they call themselves men's rights then they must act as men's rights activists like feminists do for women's rights. The similarity between the rhetoric of the two is undeniable. A Voice for Men in particular write articles in the defense of PUAs (http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens-issues/a-red-pill-message-to-a-blue-pill-world/). The only place where it properly really be measured is on reddit. I've been tagging lots of r/theredpill posters so I can try to measure how many post regularly in r/mensrights and it seems to be about one or two posters in every significant thread. It isn't necessarily a majority but it is more than most subreddits. There is also a lot of r/whiterights posters but it's more like one in every ten or so threads (other than a few significant names). There have been a few studies that have been done in follower/commenter counts and they put r/theredpill high in r/mensrights but, interestingly, r/mensrights even higher in r/theredpill in terms of cross-following/cross-posting. I think I'm rambling a little here. My point is that there is a significant overlap in user base at least, or a measurable one at least, and an earlier editor on this article was right that we shouldn't give in too easily in defining them as they self-define. Their actions are what speak louder and these two groups are not as different as they try to pretend --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all for answering my question. Father Vivian O&#39;Blivion (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Essay
(This is translated from my blog, so please bear with the poor English)

The news of the past week have been quite depressing. The murders of Isla Vista would be depressing enough on their own, but the murderer's 140 page manifesto and videos made it chilling. Many glance over the murders, dismissing the case saying "the murderer was a nutcase". True, he must have had very severe psychological problems. Western countries are nevertheless full of men, who think just like him. These men's rights activists writings on the Internet give women less human rights than to a pig raised for slaughter.

When I was a student in the 90's, my curriculum included Women's studies. I was taught by an older American feminist. I was familiarized with the most important researchers and writers of Women's studies, and I read the works of unduly forgotten female authors. I never felt that Women's studies was misandrist. The excesses of the 70's and the 80's had subsided.

When Men's studies were introduced alongside Women's studies many feminists were overjoyed. There has been a lot of good research on fathers, which also help mothers to understand fatherhood. The marginalization of men continues to be an area of research.

Sometime before 2010 the so-called men's rights and men's right movement spread from the US to all over the globe. Already in the 90's feminism's goal was explicitly equality, e.g. that gender would not affect work and careers in anyway. On the other hand, the ethos of men's rights is that women is a lower creature. Highly logically, the supposedly inferior sex has nevertheless grabbed all power within society. All societal structures favor women, women are CEOs, control politics, and everything else - especially that, which is in the pants of men. To men's rights activists sex is not about love or caring, nor is it purpose reproduction. Sex is a weapon, with which self-important women continuously humiliate and blackmail men.

Over the years I have read so many blogs and writings of these men's rights advocates. As a feminist I am interested in how they want to improve the condition of their gender. In general I am interested in anything by which people try to create meaning in the chaos of life. However their thought leave me just stupefied. For example, statistics and studies are seen as being made up, in the worst case by the "feminazis" controlling society, whose sole purpose is to further oppress men. This is already so paranoid that I do not know what to think. The "facts" of men's rights blogs are usually sourced straight from the writings of other men's rights activists (which are only "published" on the Internet).

I stress that there are opportunities for development in men's condition. It is saddening that men commit (if I recall correctly) three times as many suicides as women. We absolutely should figure out the reasons for that, and change our culture and society for the better. Violence on men is often casually dismissed and men are the weaker party in custody cases. As a feminism I am able to admit that women have some things better than men. That is the core of the issue - genders should be equal.

The atmosphere of the recent years has been turning more and more misogynistic. A common claim of men's rights activist is that all women want an alpha male, who is muscular and can build a house, but is also gentle and caring, and brings his woman a bottle of hot water when she is on her period. This ideal male would preferably be a foreigner, an exotic bull, who has never heard of Western equality. According to men's rights activists, women enjoy being dominated. The complaint is that a normal, nice guy is not good enough. Reading these "truths" I do not know whether I should cry or laugh.

The killer of Isla Vista thought along the same tracks. He was enraged at, for example, white girls taking a black boyfriend, even though a ruthless "half-white" killer, a wonderful and intelligent masculine man like himself was available. The same thinking is also reflected in men's rights activists: Women run, tongues hanging, after immigrants, if they do not outright marry someone from abroad. My understanding is that the majority of women are still happily married to a white man. But statistics mean nothing to men's rights activists, they know better when it comes to sociological facts.

Like men's rights activists, the killer believed that he has a right to intercourse with women, just because he is a man. This idea comes up again and again in the thinking of men's rights activists. Suddenly sex has become a human right, that belongs to every man, because it just does. Sex with the opposite sex is like an SSN, everyone must have it. This thinking is so totally perverse that one has to wonder how it has entered the minds of these men.

The killer was almost a parody of a men's rights activist. In his manifesto he rages on how much he hates women, because he gets no sex, friendship, or support. The same attitude emanates from the texts of men's rights activists: hating women instead of looking into the mirror. The killer considered himself a some kind of an ubermensch. Women should have been happy for such a perfect male approaching them. In real life girls were probably scared off by his narcissistic attitude.

Then we get to an another claim by men's rights activists: a woman can get sex whenever she wants. I have personally debated this topic before. I do not wish to diminish the pain and suffering brought by loneliness. Sex is about much more than just sex: being accepted by another human, receiving support and intimacy. Yes, a woman can surely get sex at a moment's notice, if she does not care at all with whom.

I am sure even a men's rights activists could get sex if he anyone was acceptable. However the impression I am getting is that they want sex from young and beautiful women. The killer wanted cheerleader-types and become embittered, when popular, beautiful girls did not return his attraction. On his video the boy drones on how he did not get from life what he deserved, which is all those things which belong in youth, like teenage romances with beauties. The same attitude is visible in the writings of men's rights activists: the world somehow owes them female companionship and sex. It is a great injustice that they receive neither. It reminds me of a schoolboy that has been promised ice cream at school lunch, but it runs out before he gets any.

The mode of thinking by which sex is a right, which belongs to every man, is so confusingly stupid, it is difficult to even start writing on it. Is it a product of us living in a sexualized culture: erotic messages are everywhere, the media represents sex and sexiness as easy, cool, and effortless things. It is of course great that we have been released from shame and taboos, but for some men it seems to imply that everything has become normal. Recently there was a documentary on Internet pedophiles, but I read the discussions which followed. Here is one good view from the girls' side. The experts told that they had noticed that many 20-30 years old man did not apparently even completely comprehend that they were doing something wrong when approaching 13 year old girls sexually. In that aspect men and boys should absolutely receive more education. On the other hand we have the men who know full well what they are doing. They think the age of consent is too high. 14 years would be more appropriate or the age of consent could be abolished altogether, because girls mature faster nowadays. Sure, the girls may get periods, but as someone who has worked with youth I am of the opinion that many girls are in fact less emotionally mature than they were in the past. Youth and children live a relatively more sheltered life than before, their personal spaces are smaller and they do not spend as much time without adults as they did in old days. They know the function of the ovaries, but do not necessarily know how to recognize or name their emotions.

Some pedophiles think that the sexuality of children should be "released" - to serve men, that is. Even on ordinary dating sites men search for young, inexperienced girls, to which they offer to teach sex. The thought is truly frightening. What has gone wrong in the development of a man, if he wants to coach children in sex? Girls, who probably do not know or dare to demand anything?

In the world of men's rights activists, a man left without sex is incel (involuntarily celibate). A man like that "gets pussy", when he learns how PUAs (pick up artists) behave. According to the peculiar logic women (and sex) are obtained by behaving contemptuously or even cruelly. Apparently these men do not realize that they themselves cause the spiral: when you demand sex from women, you beg for rejection, and the rejection leads to more misogyny. The killer of Isla Vista followed the Internet discussions of men's rights activists and pick-up artists, but he considered them cowards. Because he was an exceptional specimen, he was the only one who dared to do something. That is, he dared to become a misogynistic terrorist. That the killer is dismissed as a mere outlier, is frightening. Of course, most misogynists are not potential terrorists, but when they continue to egg on each others' misogyny online, more murders are guaranteed.

We have a tendency to think that "THAT could not happen HERE". Yet everywhere there are men with similar attitudes, who spread their misogyny online. It only takes one mentally unstable individual to have this exact same event happen. The killer was lonely and found online a group to which he could belong and whose ethos he gladly took as his own. His thoughts follow the same track as men's rights activists'.

With their work men's rights activists make impossible that which they want to achieve. They want the standing of men in society to be improved, but misogyny and weird opinions ruin their cause. Will suicidal men, homeless alcoholics, and displaced fathers receive justice by the spreading of misogynistic material which has no basis in reality? Debate with a men's rights activist resembles debate with someone who believes in UFOs: no matter how many times you show that UFO observations have a natural explanations, the facts will never sink. In the worst case the ufologist will believe that the government is covering the fact that UFOs are on Earth. In the same way men's rights activists repeat their own "facts", not caring about academic research or government statistics.

The blindness of men's rights activists to facts is well depicted by how many of them harp on how Isla Vista was not about misogyny, because the killer also murdered men. The killer wrote a long manifesto on his hatred of women, and declared that he would kill all "blonde whores". How is that not about a slaughter arising from misogyny?

--17:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC) &mdash; Unsigned, by: LauraH / talk / contribs