Forum:The Men's Rights Movement page is biased, prejudice, and fallacious

< Index | RW Article discussion

I recently discovered this website and was reveling in the rational discussion on various fallacies and other things, but that was until I went to the page on the Men's Rights Movement (MRA). This pages level of prejudice and biased information was absolutely absurd for a self proclaimed rational website.

At first glance of the page we can see an image of a women who is being prioritized above several men with the tag on the bottom "If you draw a picture, it must be true." This sarcastic and snarky comment that contributes nothing to an actual discussion. Would someone comment on Rosie the Riveter with "it's on a poster so they be able to actually do it"?

The entire article is riddled with snarky and sarcastic comments which present a biased and prejudice opinion of MRAs. Such comments like "So apparently idiocy is a long running problem" or "Look familiar? Poor oppressed man, forced to do women's work!" These snarky asides provide nothing to the spread of information on MRA or discussion on the validity of MRAs and all they serve is the purpose of belittling and demeaning the ideas of MRAs.

Then we come across the various claims page which is riddled with bad comparisons, fallacies, and biased statements with absolutely no respect towards the ideology of the MRAs (eg. Complete Crap). This section has about a few sentances for the positions of MRAs and then paragraphs upon paragraphs for the argument of the feminists. Also a few of the comments on the legitimacy portion agree with points made by the MRA and yet there is an asumption that there opinions are wrong from the start (eg. "position" is real, this is sort of true, some of which are legitimate issues where men are actually discriminated against and the entire part is called LEGITIMACY for fucks sake) Also in all of the comments on MRA supposedly believe only have links to one or two blog posts and the various claims section claims that these are the positions that all MRAs hold.

The next secection starts out with the claim that "men's rights" is usually currently used as a cover for sexism which is blatantly prejudice and biased. Another prejudice and irrational claim in the next paragraph with "their activity seems to be mostly limited to whining about the "feminazis" or "femtards" on the internet." The next parapgrpah directly compares MGTOW members to sexists. Then it goes off topic and begins cracking jokes at MGTOW members with comments like "Sex bot obsession! Liberation will soon be at hand as the sex bot nears perfection" "Of course, the irony meter is again through the roof here." is another quick aside to belittle and demean a point without actually providing any evidence or counterclaim. More biased and prejudice jokes come at the expense of MRAs with the absurd claim that is made for comedic value on a rationalist website in "If you don't eat beef jerky for every meal, idolize Chuck Norris, and tell your bitch to make you a damn sandwich, you're probably a mangina and responsible for the ongoing "feminization" of our society."

Also the inclusion of a section on Elliot Rodger is also ludicrous; the actual page doesnt even relate Elliot to MRA activity except for it saying that MRAs became defensive. I see no reason for it to be on this page other than the fact that it is indirectly associating the murder of women to MRAs.

I recently discovered this website and I was happy to find another great website for sharing intellectual and rational thought, but I am disgusted by the lack of respect for the MRA position and the use of snarky asides to belittle and demean MRAs. ^{— Unsigned, by: Spacerocket / talk / contribs}

I know I'm just pinning down one thing to reply to, and ignoring the broader text here, but almost every rationalwiki article has snarky asides and jokes. Not just ones where you happen to agree with the crazies. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree the article is biased and that the snark is evidence of this bias. I don't see that anything you point to as actually being fallacious or prejudiced. --SpecialFFrog (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Greetings Spacerocket! Welcome to RationalWiki. Perhaps a relevant tidbit for you to know: we don't espouse a neutral point of view here, but a snarky point of view! Also, it seems you haven't been confronted with the anti-feminist bullshit loudly proclaimed by many self-identified MRAs on the internet. If this is indeed the case, congratulations! 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I had the same thought at first when I read that page, it seems rather irrational to immediately equate MRA to being automatically sexist. I think that there are indeed a few points that the movement makes that are at least worth exploring. Now, saying that men should be able to force a woman to have an abortion" is clearly stupid irrational, but the child custody and divorce parts raise good points. QuantumDude (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

There are many valid points that could be addressed by a men's rights movement, and not all of their talking points are obvious nonsense. But it's another echo chamber where believers talk mostly to believers, and the result is a built in ratchet towards extremism and cant. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Image

"At first glance of the page we can see an image of a women who is being prioritized above several men with the tag on the bottom "If you draw a picture, it must be true." This sarcastic and snarky comment that contributes nothing to an actual discussion. Would someone comment on Rosie the Riveter with "it's on a poster so they be able to actually do it"?"

Both are propaganda; neither is "true". However, it's more accurate to say that "women were part of the building effort during WWII" (riveter) than "1 woman in "sexy", expensive clothes outweighs 5 men in cheaper, work clothing" (the mra picture). Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 16:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The image is about how one rich person can outweigh five poor people. *nodnods* Narky Sawtooth (Nyarnyar~) 23:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Snark

"The entire article is riddled with snarky and sarcastic comments which present a biased and prejudice opinion of MRAs. Such comments like "So apparently idiocy is a long running problem" or "Look familiar? Poor oppressed man, forced to do women's work!" These snarky asides provide nothing to the spread of information on MRA or discussion on the validity of MRAs and all they serve is the purpose of belittling and demeaning the ideas of MRAs."

As Ikanreed noted, every article is snarky; if you feel it's excessive here, edit the article and reduce the amount of snark. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 16:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Claims

"Then we come across the various claims page which is riddled with bad comparisons, fallacies, and biased statements with absolutely no respect towards the ideology of the MRAs (eg. Complete Crap). This section has about a few sentances for the positions of MRAs and then paragraphs upon paragraphs for the argument of the feminists. Also a few of the comments on the legitimacy portion agree with points made by the MRA and yet there is an asumption that there opinions are wrong from the start (eg. "position" is real, this is sort of true, some of which are legitimate issues where men are actually discriminated against and the entire part is called LEGITIMACY for fucks sake) Also in all of the comments on MRA supposedly believe only have links to one or two blog posts and the various claims section claims that these are the positions that all MRAs hold."

On "respect", see snark section.

On other issues. (Go to Talk:Men's rights movement and make a post that (1) quotes specific parts of the article and (2) raises objections to what is said. Regardless of the validity of your criticism, it's too vague to act on. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 16:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Sexism

"The next secection starts out with the claim that "men's rights" is usually currently used as a cover for sexism which is blatantly prejudice and biased. Another prejudice and irrational claim in the next paragraph with "their activity seems to be mostly limited to whining about the "feminazis" or "femtards" on the internet." The next parapgrpah directly compares MGTOW members to sexists. Then it goes off topic and begins cracking jokes at MGTOW members with comments like "Sex bot obsession! Liberation will soon be at hand as the sex bot nears perfection" "Of course, the irony meter is again through the roof here." is another quick aside to belittle and demean a point without actually providing any evidence or counterclaim. More biased and prejudice jokes come at the expense of MRAs with the absurd claim that is made for comedic value on a rationalist website in "If you don't eat beef jerky for every meal, idolize Chuck Norris, and tell your bitch to make you a damn sandwich, you're probably a mangina and responsible for the ongoing "feminization" of our society.""

On "jokes", see snark section.

If you disagree with the idea that the MRM is often sexist, then argue so on Talk:Men's rights movement. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 16:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Elliot Rodger

"Also the inclusion of a section on Elliot Rodger is also ludicrous; the actual page doesnt even relate Elliot to MRA activity except for it saying that MRAs became defensive. I see no reason for it to be on this page other than the fact that it is indirectly associating the murder of women to MRAs."

Elliot Rodger was a MRA. He killed several people, and it appears likely that his ideology helped lead him towards violence. It's relevant. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 16:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

His manifesto was loaded with MRA jargon and he spent his time on MRA forums. MRAs disclaiming Rodger are not credible - David Gerard (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)