Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive8

What does it take to lose 'silver' status?
In spite of the occasional backtracking, the hate and malice in this article is so evident that it amazes that it would be granted any credibility by the supereditors on this site. Although reading the 'Men's movement' article makes this article seem thoughtful and balanced by contrast...Actually screw 'Rational Wiki' this is a stupid, fake site. Sorry 'bout that. 09:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There are no "supereditors" on this site. The site quite evidently exists, so it's not fake. As for the rest, I suggest clicking on the "Random page" link on the left a few times.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

When did this article lose its Silver Brain status? I notice the Talk page still has the article marked as Silver. --Tracer (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Eugene Kanin’s Study Of False Rape Reports
Pretty good article here. Is there a rule on this Wiki against tumblr links? I know most of the content on there isn't suitable for references but this article would hold up to most editors and is one of the more concise criticisms of Eugene Kanin's study that MRAs spout like dogma --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not just link to the original study? Father Vivian O&#39;Blivion (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That is such a good idea, I don't know why I didn't think to do that. Thank you --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But that would miss out everything that's wrong with the original study, which is surely the Scarlet Woman's point. I see no reason not to cite her blog or the Alas one she links to.  Anyway, it should go under rape or rape culture rather than here.  The rape culture article already has some content about the myth of false rape reporting and about police attitudes to rape investigation, but I had no idea that police use polygraph tests to interrograte victims as well as suspects.  17:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait... what???? Victims are polygraphed?  sighs.  (watches anger level rise).  One tin soldier (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems like they used to be, or at least, they did in the Kanin study that MRA groups use to support their take on false rape accusations, which is based on the study of a small Midwestern town that used them regularly. I thought they meant use one of the counter-studies that Scarlet Woman links to rather than the article. I guess we could do both? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Feminism swoops in
I'm not sure if this is on purpose, but every valid point given by the MRA strawman is immediately claimed to be championed by feminism and not by the people actually working towards it 03:38, 5 May 2014‎ (UTC)
 * You mean these guys?: http://goodmenproject.com/foundation/
 * They appear to be described in the second half of the page as the guys actually working towards it. Nullahnung (talk) 08:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are the real men's rights activists mentioned at the bottom of the article, while the rest of the page deals with strawman arguments? It would be like a feminism article talking 99% about militant TERFs who want to castrate men and using that to make fun of the entire women's rights movement. This article is slanderous and dishonest. 2.86.33.99 (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Your opinion of who the REAL MRM is seems to differ from that of the article author. See No True Scotsman, maybe. Nullahnung (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I made a point below that right or wrong, mainstream internet and in some cases mainstream news (I've seen NY Times, and Quebec's daily paper do this) use MRA as a term to define the icky groups in the "manosphere". (And while manosphere is common on the interwebs, I've never seen it used in mainstream media yet). We have to address that reality, because people googling MRA are not looking for Father's Rights groups, or Divorce lawyers - they are look for "what did Time mean when it said the shooter was part of a growing trend of Men's Rights Activist sites". (googling "men's rights activism and news) https://www.google.com/search?q=men%27s+rights+activists&client=firefox-a&hs=cMc&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=ctKRU9DbCeqH8AHL8IDwBQ&ved=0CAsQ_AUoBA&biw=1280&bih=927.  One tin soldier (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

How this article has changed
It's wonderful to see how this page has changed say from 2011 (http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Men%27s_rights_movement&oldid=893811), it really has gone down hill.

As some other people have pointed out this is a hate article; and it's not even done well. This page has gone from a page that discussed both misogynists who hide behind the MRM (who are mostly fringe groups and don't represent) and those seeking genuine equality (custody issues, male circumcision, conscription, public treatment of men who are raped for example).

This has turned into a disgraceful shit-throwing fest that makes me ashamed to be a part of the online atheist community.

Yes, most gender based discrimination is against women but this page simply does not even acknowledge that there is discrimination against men in some areas.

This page acknowledged that it is a varied group with no clear set goals then makes broad statements like the wonderful 'goals' list completely ignoring the legitimate complaints.

Grow up. 182.239.132.46 (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But see, the article isn't about gender discrimination. It's not about sexism.  It's not about "me too" ism.  IT's about men's rights movement.  One tin soldier (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "This has turned into a disgraceful shit-throwing fest that makes me ashamed to be a part of the online atheist community." Good - David Gerard (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Yes, most gender based discrimination is against women but this page simply does not even acknowledge that there is discrimination against men in some areas." It seems to me that as long as people who are genuinely concerned about any real discrimination that men may face fail to keep that huge mass of misogynists and misogyny from participating in the debate, then their concerns will never, ever be taken seriously. Like it or not, hatred for women and feminism is largely what defines any sort of masculinist discourse in the public sphere. Those are the guys who have become the defacto spokesmen for your concerns. Clean up your own house, and then come worry about ours. Father Vivian O&#39;Blivion (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "This page has gone from a page that discussed both misogynists who hide behind the MRM (who are mostly fringe groups and don't represent)"
 * -Yeah, see, that's the point. Those aren't just the fringes. That is the movement. What have MRAs actually done about cutsody rights, male circumcision, conscription etc.? Have there been any real campaigns or activism? Seems to me, those are merely talking points MRAs use in order to attack feminism (nevermind feminism is not responsible for a single one of them).Octo8 (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As the superlative recent Cracked article points out, each of these groups considers all the others to be mere fringe groups. Hence the ludicrous hairsplitting in response to Elliot Rodger - David Gerard (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If the Cracked article is good, maybe we should link it somewhere that talks about MRM response to Elliot Rodger? Sounds useful. Nullahnung (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The Cracked article is good, very proud of them --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you already forgotten the discussion at the top of this page? Feminism is very much to blame. Your very comment reveals a refusal to fix men's problems. All governmental equality bodies (with the big hoses of money) are governed and staffed by feminists, which, just like you, are unable to deal with the fact that to solve men's problems you must allocate (make available) resources, which will be away from shoving money at women.
 * I would also like to point out how incredibly misandrist the whole Elliot Rodgers discussion is. Apparently a lot of folks utopian society would be so misandrist, even crazy people would only kill men. Not to mention the blatant doublethink people are willing to engage in. In other contexts none of you would have any trouble citing the real reasons for high violence rates in the US. Yet in this instance no-one thinks to draw comparisons to foreign nations. Granted, it's not trivial to investigate the internet culture of a foreign nation.
 * For shame. --82.128.250.221 (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think I realized, even in the face of running around as a feminist all my life, how deep the denial goes for some of these men (BON here, specifically). "Feminism has caused men's problems by... by.. by... well, I can't tell you how, but they bleed once a month, so surely that's part of it. One tin soldier (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What an intellectual response. I am the same BoN as in the section on the top of the page. You are free to critique my "denialism" over there. So far no one else has taken it up. --82.128.250.221 (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I can firmly diagnose that everything bad that happens to you is because you're an idiot, not because you're male - David Gerard (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

How about these things?:

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. Men have worse 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 is spent on women's healthcare.

8. Men have dangerous lives - higher rate of work deaths and work accidents and suicides

9. Feminist discourses dominate "equality"

10. Expectation of masculinity

--82.128.250.221 (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * What exactly is the Men's rights movement doing to combat these things? In my experience, Feminism has done more for men's rights than MRAs. There are many women's shelters set up by Feminist groups in my country and they are all unisex by law. Similarly, a breakdown of patriarchal gender roles would give men more freedom to live without the pressure to act certain ways. I've also found, at least in my own experience, that the consistent hostility towards rape victims actually makes the Men's rights movement a horribly disturbing space for male rape victims, who have enough difficulty with the law as it is. I'm not sure what you mean by "Feminist discourses dominate 'equality'", as the movement has entire facets dedicated to Intersectionality, as well as Black Feminism, Transfeminism, Womanism and Queer Feminism. Many of these are valid points but this isn't an article on "Why men have it worse than women", it's an article on the Men's rights movement, and the movement has done very little to combat any of these things. Maybe if the movement didn't waste so much time writing sexist articles and harassing Feminists online and spent more time doing... well... the actual activism that many Feminists do, then it wouldn't have such a pathetic reputation --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please remember you say these things are *women's fault*, not just that there are things in life that are unfair. So, an equality organization that exists to help balance the overall outlook of, say a corporation or say a government, should be equal? It *exists* because the world is not equal.  When the world equals out, such groups will naturally equal out.  or, you know, disappear.  Conscription was created cause rich men go to war on the bodies of poor men and women. Yes, women.  We may not be drafted, but we are there.  we make up 1/2 the causalities of a war.  I have no idea what "3" is.  There is research into "male things".  quite a bit of it actually.  it's just that it largely goes by the term "research" instead of "male research" because our world is focused on all thing male.  Custody disputes - finally a real one.  But what does feminism have to do with it?  6,000 some odd years saying women's only role is to be a mommy has left a scar on the judicial system who now thinks only women can be a good parent. We're working on that as feminism, but working on general gender issues in the first place.  "men have worse education results", and yet they get the best jobs.  interesting, that. I have no idea where you get the idea that "50% more is spent on women's health".  what is men's health, and women's health?  Is skin cancer a woman's health issue?  If the only issue is in teh reproductive systems, then yes, women get lots more money spent on care and research. Cause society likes healthy babies.  "Men have dangerous lives".  sucks typing at that computer, doesn't it.  Is this really true?  Do you really think men work harder, longer and more dangerously? They did, at one time, but now that statistically, most jobs are safe, it's just not an argument. Of course, birth still takes out more women than working takes out men,  just saying.... "Equality" is dominated by women, cause men don't need to fight for equality.  they already are above equal.  Note, please, equality discourse in general is dominated by anyone who needs to be noticed by society.  African Americans, the deaf community, gays, etc.    "expectation of masculinity" - again, dude, who do you think came up with that?  women?  Feminists are the ones fighting FOR your right to be as womanish as you want. One tin soldier (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Men really DO work harder, longer and more dangerously. Studies made on doctors revealed that men work statistically 10 hours more per week than women. 93% of work-related deaths happen to males. I think that is a noticeable statistical discrepancy, don't you think? :) And as far as feminism goes... can you care to explain to me for example the results of the famous, oft-quoted CDC 2011 report? This report, made under the influence of feminist Mary P. Koss, deliberately reclassified 5,200,000 male rape victims as merely sexually assaulted, and NOT raped. Mary P. Koss said that calling a man forced by a woman to sex a rape is wrong. Why is feminism trying to hide 5,200,000 male rape victims? Why practically no feminist sources mention that (only MRA-related do)? This is the famous raport for "1 in 5 women raped". - Azradun (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for being serious. There is a lot I want to say in response to that, so it will take a while (I can't compose it all in one session within the limits of my pseudo-ADD and I'm not going to work on it every day either) before it's ready, but I wouldn't be so rude as to never respond. One big theme I want to cover are the policy documents published by the Finnish top level equality officials. I don't promise to be quick, I promise the facts.
 * Also the "section on the top of the page" I was talking about above just got archived, so anyone still wanting to have a look will have to find it in the latest archive. --82.128.250.221 (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been way too lazy, but this is still on the to-do list. --82.128.250.221 (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing does more to win people over to your point of view like ending your comments with "Grow up." --Tracer (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

To add, but where?
One thing I think it's worth adding is that fact that largely, MRA groups DO NOTHING. they have all these supposed injustices, but other than some rallies and flooding school rape reporting systems with faux reports, they don't actually do anything. In my own personal lingo, this is what separates "MRA" from people fighting for the equal treatment of men in the Courts, for example. I'm not sure if "activism" (or serious lack there of) should be tucked up in another section, or should be a small section on its own. opinions?One tin soldier (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "List of political activist campaigns undertaken by MRAs:


 * That said, I do know there are groups working re: child custody in Quebec/Canada. while I imagine that some of them do something resembling proper political activism and aren't loathesome examples of human patheticness, the one guy I met last year who claimed to be involved in the movement was a real piece of work. Father Vivian O&#39;Blivion (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There are tons of honest, hard working, women loving men who want to change the Court system to improve men's circumstances especially in child custody, but also the lingering cases of alimony. And they should be highlighted. but when I go to manboobz (n/d/b/a Mammoth something) and read how enraged they are about X or Y, and then see that their rage has led them to ...um... MAKE POSTERS FOR THE INTERENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WHOOHOO, I just cringe. Cause it does give real men's issues, bad bad light.One tin soldier (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you shouldn't be judging whether "MRA groups" do stuff by what you read at ManBoobz. There are organisations like the ManKind Initiative, The Good Men Project, and Fathers for Justice who do actually campaign, lobby, protest, fundraise, etc. on issues affecting men.   19:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, MRA groups are quite different from groups of people fighting for men's equality. There is a reason Fathers for Justice stays 10000 miles away from the term "mra" or its associations.One tin soldier (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a false distinction. These are groups who campaign on men's rights issues.  If you arbitrarily define "MRA groups" instead as internet forums & their users, then sure, it's easy to conclude that "they don't do anything" but that doesn't seem like a fair appraisal of the movement as a whole.  20:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not? Everyone I know who has heard of the MRA has the opinion that they are just basement-dwelling neckbeards on the internet, even those who don't know much about feminism (recalling that by definition MRA is a reaction to feminism). It may have started offline, but words change their meanings as the world turns. Nullahnung (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the general argument Weaseloid is making is that we should differentiate between fathers rights organisations and groups like ManKind Initiative (who do some good work - conservative values of its leadership aside) and the bulk online MRAs who are unconnected (and much more radical) in comparison. We could do this quite easily by adding a sentence disclaimer of sorts, or by saying "many" rather than all. I agree that the extremist online groups are a disgrace to the few real life groups who do try to change things, especially as the more moral alternative tend to be quite small groups, but it wouldn't cause any harm to add a short note to this --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (EC, to Nullahnung): How are you defining MRA then?  The offline activists are already mentioned within the article.  Redefining the term to exclude these groups so that we can make the fatuous generalisation that "MRAs don't do anything" is needlessly moving the goalposts.  There's plenty to criticise MRAs for already without this.  01:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (EC, to Drowninginlimbo): The article already does differentiate between more respected organisations and the assholes at internet forums. But they all belong within the wider concept of "men's rights".  Once we start arbitrarily redefining that as an online-only movement, then criticising it for being an online-only movement, it gets silly.  There is an overlap anyway: while they maintain a good public image and a (mostly) sane leadership, those men's rights & father's rights organisations do still attract a fair number of misogynist wingnuts to their ranks.  01:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I can see your point. Nullahnung (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

We do a pretty decent job of dealing with various approaches to feminism on their own terms -- we don't lump TERFs with more mainstream approaches, and our articles on figures like Dworkin show how some editors can have issues with her approach without dumping all over feminism writ large. Seems we could do the same in this case. Father Vivian O&#39;Blivion (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is probably one of size. These is a minority who stand for almost entirely different things to the MRAs that are most vocal online. For every one person contributing in some way to supporting male victims of domestic abuse there are hundreds harassing feminists and circulating misinformation concerning the statistics of false rape accusations. It's the inverse of Feminists and TERFs so it makes it more difficult to write on them. If anything the online ones just make it more difficult for the few who do seem to have good intentions (edit: I just remembered quite a good article on this --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We've been down this path many times with this article. But at some point we need to take the bull by the horns and accept how mainstream internet culture, if not main stream American culture is using the term "men's rights activists".  I think we have the ability (in fact, I think we already have done, but clearly not to everyone's standards) to distinguish the "types" of men's rights, and exactly what is meant when blog after blog starts calling shooters "MRA-type".One tin soldier (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict x 3)
 * Oh, I think the article as it stands does this just fine. I was just saying we should make the distinction in the new section when added, otherwise we'll probably just get MRAs coming here to add the exception in a considerably less neutral way --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think a new section is needed or justified for this rather and circular tenuous point. At best, we can say (e.g. in the last paragraph or two of the 'history' section) that the MRAs at Reddit, MGTOW forums, etc. don't appear to be involved in any activism.  It would still be rather a generalisation; some of them may well be involved in IRL groups too.  19:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Social Justice Category
Not agreeing with that being used to describe MRM. More like Social Injustice. Zero (talk - contributions) 16:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I did that accidentally. Too many tabs. Reverted. 17:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You may think the term "social injustice" is an opposite term to "social justice", but actually it is a supporting term. Why? Because social justice is used to address the social injustice there is. Think about it. Nullahnung (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So what would be an opposite term? Biggotry? Zero (talk - contributions) 18:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Bigotry*, could work. Nullahnung (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a strange article, as detailed all the heck over the talk pages. but as a concept of "men's rights" it is a social justices.  Fathers are generally (thanks to a patriarchal set of standards, but that's not here or there) screwed if they want full custody.  Those states that still have alamony are equally screwing men.  and that is a legitimate "social justice".  but then the MRA as understood by the vast majority of hte internet world, and now some measure of mainstream press, is yes, highly "injust".One tin soldier (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * One argument: MRA belongs in the SJ category for the same reason that Bull Connor or Orville Faubus belongs in a wiki category about the civil rights struggle -- one cannot understand a political movement without understanding its opposition. MRA, as it is usually expressed in its own little sphere, is an expression of what progressive activists should be working against, and you can't understand one without understanding the other. Father Vivian O&#39;Blivion (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There's an important difference; people like Connor and Faubus were actual obstacles to the civil rights movement - they were public officials who had real power and influence. There is no real comparison with MRAs. To put it another way, black people lacked rights and equality because of people like Connor and Faubus. By contrast, while MRAs well may be opposed to women gaining rights and equality, they are not the reason women lack them in the first place. This isn't necessarily a reason not to put it in the SJ category, just a point.FullMetalJacobin (talk) 23:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Out of curiosity...
Can anyone tell me about the Fedora thing? Why are Fedoras and MRA's associated (and to a lesser extant - Liberatrians)? Acei9 05:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where it started, but some men (often of the MRA or libertarian variety, though sometimes just of the social outcast variety) pair up the fedora with other weird bits of formal clothing (e.g. trench coats) while eschewing things like proper grooming and ignoring the other pieces of clothing necessary to make a fedora work (like the suit and tie). I had a friend who stopped being my friend after he began to hang out with some really weird people. His typical attire was a wife-beater shirt and jeans with a fedora and trench coat over top. Normally I'm not one to cut contact with someone over poor fashion choices or other friends, but his attitude changed once he started to hang around them and he definitely moved into MRA territory.
 * It makes me sad though, because there's still no better companion to a nice suit than a well-cut and fitted fedora. Ah well, perhaps some day the association with MRAs will fade. - Grant (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have never owned, nor desired to own, a fedora though I do think personal grooming is fairly important in todays world. Not sure why anyone would want to adorn themselves in such a fashion as detailed above. Acei9 05:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea either. While I do like the idea of wearing a fedora with a matching suit, that's not the main use of those hats these days. - Grant (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not a hat person. Though I do own a number a tailored suits I prefer nice cuff-links and a well fitted shirt with an understated tie. Acei9 06:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I feel like I could be a hat person, but I'm not at the moment either. I'm with you on the cuff-links, shirt, and tie, however. In many ways I think men's fashion is a bit of a lost art to many people. I wonder if folks like MRAs co-opt certain bits of men's fashion (such as the fedora and trench coat, formerly two staples) in order to try to co-opt some of that prestige. It's an interesting thought. - Grant (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have a friend who is a Milliner (or hat-maker if you prefer). Consequently I have a fair few hats. They come in useful surprisingly often - most notably when I am gambling on the dogs or the horses and need to be dressed in a suit or tie out in the sun. They make me look respectable enough that no one cares when I am pissed before five. Tielec01 (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll admit I am quite interested in fashion. I like to wear tailored suits, own several coats (none of which could be considered 'trench'), several pairs of cufflinks, colognes and shoes (admittedly they are all sneakers). But what I have most of are t-shirts. It is an expensive way to dress oneself but I like the look and feel of nice clothes. Anyway, isn't that the point of life? Acei9 06:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * When you say tailored do you mean bespoke, made to measure, or bought off the rack then tailored? Tielec01 (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Off the rack is unacceptable. Acei9 07:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * +1. It's nigh impossible to find an off-the-rack suit that can be altered appropriately anyways, unless you happen to fit almost the exact body type that the store in question caters to. While many people think that you can obtain a good fit by buying an off-the-rack suit and having it altered, there are very real limits to how far alterations can go, and you'll very rarely get a good fit going that route. Besides, the extra cost of altering everything often makes it more expensive to go that route than it would be to take a step up to made-to-measure. - Grant (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm quite interested in clothes, mostly vintage (some of it smart, some not so much; not really into suits so much). I have a few hats & like them but basically don't wear them unless the weather makes it necessary.  I find it uncomfortable to wear them for too long & a hassle to carry around if I take a hat out with me & end up not wearing it much.  Plus it feels like a bit of an affectation: we're never going to return to the pre-1960s days when a hat was an essential daily item of dress, & wearing a hat just for style rather than weather conditions seems a bit vain.  I guess that's partly where the archetype of internet losers with fedoras comes in (not only MRAs, but also bronies, libertarians, angry atheists, etc).  There's a bunch of photo memes of these kind of people wearing hats indoors (which is vain & silly in itself), and it's usually a really trashy fedora (something like this, though arguably a trilby; it's a fine distinction) and badly matched with T-shirts or other casual clothes & awful haircuts or facial hair.  Image search for fedora + neckbeard for a bunch of examples.  I guess it's kindof about individuality & non-conformity (a big deal for MRAs & libertarians), which fails badly because of a lot of these people's poor aesthetics & lack of self-awareness.  22:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Suits are kinda necessary for me as I do a bit of consultancy and some of my clients wouldn't take me very seriously if I strolled up in my casuals. As to hats worn inside - that is a definite no-no as per The Sopranos:

Acei9 00:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * When it comes to clothing, I'm a traditionalist myself. When the occasion isn't formal enough to warrant a suit, I'm in dress pants, a dress shirt, and a nice blazer; sometimes with a nice silk knit tie (always four-in-hand for such informal occasions). Hats, as you say, are tougher (and are never to be worn indoors anyways). There are only a few hats that are appropriate to wear with a suit (or with a blazer), and now-a-days it's far more common to use an umbrella in rainy conditions and not bother with the hat. Admittedly, it doesn't help that this non-conformity ideal has led to the fedora - generally the only hat acceptable for use with a suit other than the bowler for a brief time in the '30s - being "taken" by MRAs and the sort. Hats inside, on the other hand, are (as Ace said) a huge no-no, and that rule existed well before the Sopranos existed. - Grant (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I used to skate and snowboard so a lot of casual clothing choices stem from those early heady days. Nothing beats the feel and look of a tailored shirt and suit - I like arriving at job interviews better dressed than the interviewer...simple pleasures..:-) Acei9 03:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Heh, very nice. I used to dress more casually, but I was never really happy with the way I looked. A year ago I decided to re-invent my image, and thus I began dressing myself using the same standards I use now. - Grant (talk) 03:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My Auntie made me a monogrammed hankie which I use as a pocket square for black tie events. Classy.
 * As an aside, I find it funny that the talkpage for Men's Right's Activist has morphed into a GQ comments section. Acei9 04:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have a nice patterned silk pocket square I use for informal occasions and a plain white linen square for more formal endeavours. Well... At least the conversation began on-topic, though it does appear to have meandered a fair bit. - Grant (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

What you guys consider "formal" wear is down right amusing. Do you even match your leathers? I for one would argue that hats are never acceptable in semi-formal or formal situations (inside and outside) except in a blatantly "Western" semi-formal setting. Lager (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, why do you find it amusing? Men's formal wear in the western world hasn't exactly changed much in the last few decades, and if you're ever attending a black tie or white tie event, the dress code is fairly strict and leaves little to the imagination. While fashion is always going to be a subjective thing, the rules for these classes of formal wear aren't so flexible yet, at least by current social standards in the Western world.
 * That said, hats are indeed not generally acceptable for semi-formal (black tie) or formal (white tie) events. However, for less formal occasions, such as when wearing a standard suit, a hat would still be acceptable if it weren't for the popular conflation between fedoras and MRM types. - Grant (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary & Immature content
> Its membership is primarily male (duh),

Is the duh really necessary

> "Goals" of MRAs

Scare quotes do not belong in a wiki article. If there is an need to emphasis the slacktivism towards these goals. "Goals proposed by MRAs" or "MRA Discussion Points"

> Our schools today discourage boys from fighting. (Oh noes!)

Come on really. This is suppose to be a rationalwiki page not an encyclopedia dramatica page

> The more batshit view held by MRAs include ideas that women usually lie about rape. (See where this is going?)

Holy shit, just state it plainly no need for the drivel filler.

>Every study done by the FBI suggests that false reporting in rape cases is no higher than in any other type of criminal case.

As a side note : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#FBI_statistics Not identical, but likely within normal variation. Citations are good, especially when the works already done for you.

>(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)

This is in contrast to claims that men should be more socially allowed to be child care givers, school teachers, or maids without stigma. Writing in a belittling manner just makes the statements or commentary appear more of a joke than report on the facts.

> Most countries only require men to participate in the draft or national services. This means life is more risky in those countries, simply by being born male and possibly having to go to war.[26]

Side Note 2 : I think it is worth mentioning the issues military women face, such as the frequency of violence and rape against them. The Various claims section is well written, but I feel like the sections prior to it will likely put off a lot of people before they reach it.

> They also blast feminists for their "man-hatred," but they dump copious amounts of hatred on men who don't subscribe to their agenda share their persecution complex.

If you have to strikethrough it it doesn't belong there at all. Googolplexbyte (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Much of this commentary seems to be directed towards the tone of voice. Please see SPOV. Swerve (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "Avoid [...] anything childish" I'm fine with humour, but "Oh noes", "duh", & scare quotes are bottom of the barrel humour at best. Indeed humour is a useful tool for skepticism, but this kind of "snark should support our site missions", I don't think this does. Googolplexbyte (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Men's rights in the office
In summer women, even in more formal contexts, can wear sandals and season-specific clothes. They can use umbrellas of all colours. It is considered acceptable to have a spare pair of tights and footwear in a drawer in case of rain etc.

Men have to wear shoes, and, in more formal situations, full suits, and long ties (even in close proximity to fax machines) rather than bow ties. Umbrellas have to be dark colours. Spare shoes and socks would be considered odd. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am a man and keep shoes in my drawer in the office for days when I jog into work, as well as a fold-up raincoat. 00:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Misoyginist?
Should we really describe an entire movement as "Misoyginist"? MRM certainly contains elements of Misogyny, held by certain groups and/or individuals within the movement, but it certainly doesn't summarise the views held by the entire movement.

120.151.52.231 (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm… it's been a while since I've read this article and I'm a lazy shit… which specific quotes or whatever bother you? GØØBY PLS   What is this that stands before me? Dolan.png 05:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This one? Fuck yes. - David Gerard (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I find myself heavily disagreeing with the majority of this article and in particular the labeling of the MRA as Misogyinist, to criticise feminism is not the same as attacking women and all in all this seems to carry an incredible bias that I did honestly did not expect of a wiki such as this. I do not personally identify as an MRA but rather an egalitarian however I find myself agreeing with many issues they bring up. Additionally feminism while it claims to tackle some of the same issues, I have rarely seen anything of the sort come from them. Ouroboros85 (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not Rationalwiki, after reading about malae right movenments, i would name it Biasedwiki, or feministwiki

pension ages
A major MRA issue left out here are the difference in pension ages. In many countries, the state age for pension and benefits is higher for men than women, so women are eligible for a pension and healthcare at age 60, men at age 65

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.


 * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2515674/Its-official-Circumcision-DOESNT-affect-sexual-pleasure-according-biggest-study-issue.html


 * http://www.livescience.com/27769-does-circumcision-reduce-sexual-pleasure.html


 * Wikipedia has tons of resources too Shatto (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

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. 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.- 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)
 * 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:         --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.
 * 02:21, 9 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. &mdash; 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? &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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...


 * "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  )? 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? 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)