Forum:Why is the Men's Right's movement misogynist?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Mens' Rights Movement[edit]

The page here about the Men's Rights Movement has unrelated sources, inane bias and a fair bit of personal 'splaining. I do wonder why exactly the Men's Rights Movement is misogynist, seeing as the page delivers no collective evidence for the movement teaching or being inherently misogynist. — Unsigned, by: ‎CaptainCaptain / talk / contribs

Perhaps you should take it to the talk page of the article? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
To start off with some terminology, Men's Rights Advocates/Activists or MRAs are those who support the Men's Rights movement. Instead of campaigning for the rights of men, they frequently block feminists efforts to campaign for the rights of women, either blaming feminism for much of society's ills or claiming that feminists have "gone too far" and now men are the oppressed class. In reality, the oppression of both (effeminate) men and women stem from a system of oppression known as patriarchy, which the MRAs are upholding. The Men's Liberation Movement, on the other hand, are working with feminists to campaign for men's rights. Withoutaname (talk) 08:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so the MRA's are part of the big, bad, patriarchy. You know, I've received a remarkable lack of invitations to the what I assume are fortnightly patriarchy meetings. I doubt you have any evidence for the members of the Men's Rights Movement going to big meetings and discussing patriarchy. Your first point, that the MRM likes to stop feminists talking, is quaint seeing as I can bring up this where we have feminists shutting down an MRM conference through rather forceful and illegal means. Additionally I would bring up the facts that men make up 2-3 times the suicide rates of women, at least here in NZ, with the majority committing suicide in their twenties, they make up over 90% of workplace deaths and more than 80% of war deaths. That isn't the cause of feminism, but it is true. CaptainCaptain (talk) 08:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
See <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah, I've read the entirety of that quaint, biased little article. In the rebuttals you either get holed logic, such as wishy-washy argument slideoffs as exemplified by the "However, it should be noted that disabled men were also exempt; does this mean that able-bodied people were more discriminated than the disabled?" line, or the logic is circular and creates a feminist feedback loop of We need feminism because the MRAs are misogynist because they question feminism which means we need feminism because the MRAs... In the Domestic Violence 'rebuttal' the fact that MRAs bring up domestic violence and call for more support for abused men is blown off and the rebuttal rambles on about false blame allocation. The rebuttal against the complaint about the govt creating a pro-woman-owned small business fund was a large weasel word. The sentence length rebuttal slides blame off like water even though it was coming down like concrete. The marriage-rape rebuttal is something I have never seen an MRA or the MRM groups bring up, dunno what bee-hind you pulled that from. CaptainCaptain (talk) 08:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I tried, very hard to listen to you after that first sentence about the disabled and your ramblings about it somehow being circular logic, but I couldn't. Let's just assume you're right. Straight White men are not the ones committing the high suicide rates, and IIRC MRAS are always saying feminists are against straight white men. Read "Cultural considerations in adolescent suicide prevention and psychosocial treatment". Maybe, just maybe, the war deaths are because of all the countries that have only or mostly male infantry?<-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 08:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Hahaha, I afford the common courtesy of reading your vitriolic article and all your posts and yet, one paragraph proved too much for you. Instead you offered up the idea that only the poor non-white people commit suicide! Maybe in Murica, maybe not, but here in NZ, the suicides are committed by and large by the most prevalent race, that is, white European-descendants. I can hear the gas leaking from your false arguments. The idea that white people do not commit suicide is just insane and, psst, RACIST. Yes, one can be racist against white people! Thus, with your argument impaled by the fact that in my country at least, how do you refute the fact that the majority of suicides are committed by males of all races at a rate of 2-3 times that of women with the majority being done when the men are in the prime of their lives?CaptainCaptain (talk) 09:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Are you just trying to use gotcha questions and arguing in bad faith? Withoutaname (talk) 09:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
That's the problem with most MRAs, they refuse to discuss anything to do with patriarchy and use feminism as a scapegoat for all of men's problems. If you truly care about the issues that men face in society, join the men's liberation movement as its a far more reasonable activism and is compatible with feminism's fight for women's rights.
Also if anything MRAs are the ones being misandrist. Just look at their argument against paternity leave Withoutaname (talk) 09:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm pretty sure most of the third wave is happening in the U.S.A and the UK. I'm not sure why they're killing themselves, but again, often feminists speak out against entitled straight white men not just men in general (regardless of the validity). Bias is not inherently wrong. What you call a slideoff is a refutation, but of course you won't admit that. The article does a pretty good job of explaining what's up with domestic abuse and why it's not taken as seriously when it happens to men. I don't know what you're talking about for the small business, so I'll let that slide. The marriage rape claims you say you never heard are referenced. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's like this: Paul Elam and other prominent faces of the MRA movement don't spend nearly as much time trying to do stuff for men as they do talking about how much they hate women, be they specific or general women, and men who support women in something. They also don't spend much money on men, in the form of scholarships or support programs or prostate cancer research or health and wellness education (I'm in my late 20's, some of my old middle school and high school classmates now have skeletal-muscular problems caused by them starting to lift weights and other exercise when they were too young for it. Bad backs are great stuff when you're not even 30). Even the supposedly-separate MGTOW movement, its forums focuses mostly on how much they hate women instead of oh, movies, books, hobbies, whatever stuff men who aren't stressing about finding a woman would be doing when they actually stopped worrying about women. It's not too uncommon for some MRA to declare that they could lift more/beat up/shoot more hoops/get laid more than someone who criticizes them, which is reinforcing the old Manly Man stereotypes (that a man's worth is determined entirely by physical prowess) and isn't helping fix any kind of bias against men or doing anything to make dangerous male-dominated jobs, such as construction, commercial fishing, policework, etc, safer.
Now, I could be wrong and it could just be me seeing the assholes, but I've never seen anything positive/constructive any MRA has done to better the lot of the betesticled half of the population. I've been looking because, well, I try to be fair, and I hope someone can turn up an MRA-funded scholarship because it means Elams and Esmays aren't the entirety of the movement.
There's plenty of assholes and intolerance (specifically, lack of forgiveness or understanding of slips or errors in understanding and "You're either with us or against us") among the feminist and, more broadly, social justice movements, but those actually do something nice every now and then.
TL;DR Assholes will make any group look bad, I try not to be one and hope you aren't one, either. One day, the non-assholes need to band up and tell the assholes to shut up and stop being assholes. --Maxus (talk) 09:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the removal of paying money to a specific group of people for their life choices is misandrist. Brilliant logic. You did not bring up evidence to back the claim that the MRM whines about feminism and offers no alternatives. A man in Canada set up the first abused men's shelter, was not granted funding, lost the shelter and committed suicide. For certain the feminists did not lift any fingers, nor did your imaginary 'men's liberation movement' which you have failed to understand is just a rehash of the MRM but under feminist control. Can't let those men think for themselves! UNACCEPTABLE. Compatible with feminism's fight for women's rights? Okay then, name a right in the Western world that women do not possess but which men do. Go on. Find one. Keep in mind it's not gonna be a wishy washy little thing hidden in the clause of a website, but emblazoned on a country's Bill of Rights or similar document.

In response to the second post, a slideoff is a fake rebuttal that says nothing or redirects to an incorrectly stated argument as I made an example of in my post that quoted your article. Bias is inherently wrong when presenting information. I can for example tell you that Hitler killed 9 million Jewish thugs. If you did not know who Hitler was, you'd think from my description I had described a vigilante. Ah, the wondrous entitled straight white man argument. Lemme get this straight. You think that by being a straight white male the world bows to you? Boy, I wish the world bowed to my boyfriend. I bet the patriarchy would give him discounts on food, let him go free if he murdered someone, let him steal, god it sounds awesome to be a straight white male. I wonder why they'd KILL THEMSELVES AT SUCH A HIGH RATE ALONG WITH THE OTHER MEN.CaptainCaptain (talk) 09:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

"Yes, the removal of paying money to a specific group of people for their life choices is misandrist. Brilliant logic. You did not bring up evidence to back the claim that the MRM whines about feminism and offers no alternatives. A man in Canada set up the first abused men's shelter, was not granted funding, lost the shelter and committed suicide."

I think a reason the man was not granted funding was because how society (and the gov) viewed men's situations in comparison to women. This is due to inequality, not feminism. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 09:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I split the earlier post into two. Who do you think influenced the government to not bother granting funding? I love the argument. The system built to help men hurts men as much as possible. Man, can men not do anything right?CaptainCaptain (talk) 09:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure stereotypes of men, and gender inequality influenced the government. You failed to explain how bias is inherently wrong, it sound's like ad hominem. You are assuming equality on paper transfers to equality in practice. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 09:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
And you have no evidence of feminists complaining about this, starting men's shelters, doing what you preach? Darn, it's like a proper religion with a floaty, unrealistic god and hypocrisy as far as the eye can see!
  1. It's not feminism's fucking job to fight for men. If you want to do that, join any of the men's liberation movements or male feminists who have a focus on men's rights.
  3. Why are you so against paternity leave? Do you prefer men, especially fathers, to have even less benefits in society? Are you a misandrist as well?
Withoutaname (talk) 09:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

In response to second part, what, explaining that informational bias is wrong is ad hominem? Is everything ad hominem? I AM A GOD. <- ad hominem? Also, you didn't bring up evidence for the request for a right that men have that women do not. Come on, if it's one of your biggest talking points evidence must be everywhere! Come on, it's just gonna be a little clause in a Bill of Rights! "PS, no women allowed"CaptainCaptain (talk) 09:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

1. What do you think the feminism movement's goals are? You don't seem to understand, please explain what you think feminism is. 2. You failed to explain why plain bias was wrong and instead used it as an attack in place of an argument, ad hominem. 3. If you're referring to the wall of text the other editor wrote, I have no idea what right they were talking about because I didn't read it. If not, please elaborate? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 09:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

1. Let's take the dictionary definition since you SocJus are so fond of it. "The promotion of equal rights of women to men" or a rewording of that. 2. I explained why bias was wrong through an example. It will leave the reader biased in one form or another and sure, that's fine for a Donald Trump speech, but a wiki? Even some SocJus wiki like this? It's a false system of information relay. 3. I'm assuming that you're talking about my request for a right that men have that women do not have as afforded by a country's constitution/Bill of Rights/other important document. Which, reminder, has not been supplied. CaptainCaptain (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
No. Bias is defined as "1.prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair". It has nothing to do with the accuracy of the information. And again, I never said there was a right women don't have. I'm not sure where you're getting a lot of the things you believe are my views from. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Men have the right to not commit more suicides than women. How is this an issue again? Withoutaname (talk) 09:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
What do male suicide rates have to do with feminism? It's definitely a problem. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 09:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
In response to Kosteror, the definition of bias results in a practice of bias that results in word manipulation or information omission/falsehood addition. Once again, I can say that "Hitler was a charismatic young man who liked dogs and believed in his country." to someone who doesn't know of Hitler, he sounds lovely because I omitted his dictatorship and genocide. The request for a missing right was directed at someone else who brought it up if it wasn't you

In response to Withoutaname, hahaha aren't you lovely, just brushing off the suicides of people. I bet if it was women committing it more you'd have your knickers in quite a twist. But men? "Bah, let them die." Good old feminist morality right there. CaptainCaptain (talk) 09:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

That is a form of bias, and it's not inaccurate. You further proved my point. I wonder where you are getting your definitions of bias, perhaps you are making them up and attempting to apply them as recognized definitions?<-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 09:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
By disproving a point I proved a point. You're about as bad as that fool Anita Sarkesian. I cannot comprehend why you think bias is a good thing. Why you think manipulating information rather than ever giving the full scoop is a good thing. I hope you're not a journalist, because if you are we're doomed. I notice you're refuting less and less. I can only assume it's because you have no evidence to back up any refutations any more. CaptainCaptain (talk) 09:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
>"that fool Anita Sarkeesian"
Confirmed GamerGater right here, ladies and gentlemen Withoutaname (talk) 09:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I should clarify, suicide rates are a societal issue. But how is it an issue related to feminism?
Assuming I wear knickers? Do you have some sort of stereotypes against feminists you need to get off your chest? Withoutaname (talk) 09:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Well if the men's liberation movement does not exist on the first page of Google apart from some obscure Wikipedia entry about a dead movement, and the feminists don't want the MRAs to discuss things because all feminists are saints who support everyone, it MUST be an issue for feminism because no one else is allowed to claim responsibility. CaptainCaptain (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You failed to disprove biased statements being inaccurate, because you yourself made a biased statement that was in fact accurate. You realize a reason men commit suicide so much is because of toxic masculinity?<-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 09:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, you've obviously lost or lack evidence for any refutations if you're so eager to chase the 'bias is bad' argument. I love SocJus. Also, I didn't partake in the Gamergate movement though if you asked me I would say I supported it. Let me guess. That makes me a misogynist. I dislike bad ethics in gaming journalism, so I am a misogynist. Yeah...that makes sense...

Additionally, men commit suicide because of 'toxic masculinity'? HAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh my god, that is such a demeaning and trivializing thing to say. "Yeah, ma'am, the reason your son hung himself was not because he had issues that no one acknowledged and that the state laughed at is it cooed over women, but rather because someone said that men look good muscular. Sorry, not sorry."CaptainCaptain (talk) 10:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

What evidence do I lack? Bias is NOT inaccurate, as you yourself have proven. Why are you unable to grasp events that have just unfolded before you, by your actions?

A reason men commit so much suicide is because toxic masculinity discourages them from seeking help ( <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

This is your logic:

  1. X is biased.
  2. Therefore, X is false.

However the example you gave is both true and biased:

"Hitler was a charismatic young man who liked dogs and believed in his country."

Therefore, your premise is wrong. QED

Absolutely brilliant logic. Men commit suicide because PATE WEE ARC EE! The system that loves men ever so much makes sure that as many men die as possible while preserving as much female life and happiness as possible. Absolutely brilliant, comedy gold. These silly men can't do anything right, can they!CaptainCaptain (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Now that I have provided evidence, you act like a complete spastic. Of course. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 10:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
You look like the type of person who couldn't tell sexism if it stared at you in the face.
"Women display plenty more artistic skill than men do."
"Women tend to drive worse than men do. The statistics show that most accidents are caused by young women."
"There's a reason prostitution exists: women serve a greater degree of sexual pleasure than men do."
"Men always have to go out and make money, while women spend their time at home doing easy jobs."
Which of these statements is sexist? Withoutaname (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Look at your source. One paragraph. 0 supplementary material. 0 references. Wow, definitely not an unreliable source in the slightest capable of disproving years of other people's experiences including my own, seeing as I've talked to suicidal men and boys, about four. Perhaps not many, but more than you're moronic source. You also didn't disprove the point that the patriarchy isn't very good at its sole purposeCaptainCaptain (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I actually did use references, you dunce. You may call medical studies unreliable sources all you want, however this will not change facts. The facts would still be here if we were both dead, and your anecdotal evidence is not going to change that. You annoying twat, I never said anything about a patriarchy. Piss off. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The source has 0 references and 0 supplementary material. Its abstract is its conclusion. It is one source. You did not disprove that there is more than just little old me reporting on causes that men and boys bring up for suicide but, you've been glazing over everything so far, WHY STOP NOW!? You have one, paragraph-long source that just lists weasel words and concludes in the section marked 'abstract'.CaptainCaptain (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Virtually any medical source I cite is superior to your anecdotal evidence. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I've said twice now that there are many, many people who have spoken to suicidal men and boys whose reports do not correlate with your weaselly SocJus-approved studies. Additionally if your toxic masculinity argument is so strong, why don't the big news hubs report a crapton about it, especially your SocJus news outlets who I assume care an awful lot about men?
Sure there stated these people exist, which means they do. And also, it's not possible those are just some reasons? Right? I'm not an SJW, the more you call me that the more I detest you. Calling everything you find unpleasant Social Justice does not advance your arguments. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

"There are men killing themselves so the idea of a system generally granting men more opportunities than women is bogus!" Guys, why do you indulge a guy that proposes such a moronic argument? Seriously. (talk) 10:27, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

I'm feeling oodles of sadness for offending the person who enjoys trivializing people killing themselves and chocking it up to another god I mean 'toxic masculinity'. Perhaps I should remove my 'problematic' self from this electric premises if you cannot tolerate someone calling you a member of a group that you so clearly love here. Second post, I fail to see how "DAH SIS TEM" offers men advantages. My boyfriend didn't get a free ticket to anywhere. He worked his ass off in high school and was afforded a good scholarship, but he's been having moderate trouble entering a job. Not really any free tickets or advantages afforded to him. Patriarchy works in mysterious ways?

So, in conclusion, this thread searched for evidence as to why the MRM is misogynist. No evidence was found, we instead found more evidence that SocJus do not care that men kill themselves at the rate at which they do, that the patriarchy works in mysterious ways and that men seeking equality should submit to a dead SocJus puppet. This is excellent, I thank you all for your time.CaptainCaptain (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Nope, your refusal to accept evidence is not the same as there being none. You have completely renounced the use of reason, and I will no longer engage with you. It would be the equivalent of administering medicine to the dead. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Hehehehe, if you say so SocJus. Give my regards to Big Sister.CaptainCaptain (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Dismissing a total bullshit argument doesn't make me not care about people killing themselves. Christ! How did you get this crazy idea in your head that having a patriarchic society must mean all men are served grapes on plates all day while the women do all the work? Seriously, go look up what "patriarchy" actually means instead of spouting strawman bullshit. (talk) 10:44, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Blah blah blah, power held EXCLUSIVELY by men. Seeing as Germany is ruled by a woman and all Western countries have female political leaders and corporate leaders, patriarchy theory falls apart before it moves. But then feminists did what they're good at and moved the goalposts until it meant a system that benefitted men over women. Which clearly isn't the case as I have disproven, so you move the goalposts BACK again even though those posts have been smashed too. Quaint.CaptainCaptain (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Well shit, you just made the "racism is over because Obama became president" argument, but for sexism. Have fun being stupid. (talk) 10:55, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Haha, silly SocJus. If patriarchy means power exclusively for men, women would not be allowed to take power. But there are women in power, thus, it is obvious that the patriarchy is not in power. Or maybe it works in mysterious ways?CaptainCaptain (talk) 11:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Nobody said anything about a patriarchy you useless troll. How is this not blatant trolling? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • criticizes patriarchy theory evident in posts, is shouted at for doing so* The sound of crumbling narratives sounds similar to lots and lots of glass shatteringCaptainCaptain (talk) 11:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Go back to your bridge. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Um, all of your arguments have basically been in opposition to the whole of the social sciences, Captain Captain. So are you one of those neoreactionary types who believes university is some kind of communist conspiracy or are you just another uneducated crank whining about things he clearly has no understanding of? Ironically, to any person educated in the humanities, the crazy horseshit you've spewed here is evidence enough that your stance is intellectually bankrupt. (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I question if this fits in this category...I don't think so. Perhaps it should be vaped? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 11:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
And so the brave SocJus soldiers torched the tainted letters, silencing dissent against their utopia. CaptainCaptain (talk) 11:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
And so the insolent troll limped back to his bridge. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Can we try this again, minus the passive-aggressive assertions from both sides about trolling and narratives?[edit]

Thanks. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 14:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I tried in good faith to argue my point. I pointed out what was wrong with the "bias" argument, gave links to AVFM's crusade against paternity leave, and pointed to examples of feminist organizations' attempts at helping men. Skeptic also gave a link to a research study about toxic masculinity. Captain dismissed all of our arguments. At that point I would be hard pressed to assume good faith anymore, because it's hard to argue with someone who denies reality. Withoutaname (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but the whole question can be answered with: "Because on their website(s), misgoynistic people post misogynistic stuff. Go there. Read it." It's like asking "Why do people believe that the KKK has a problem with people of color?". BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY DO. --Irian (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


...they have their head up their asses.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but isn't the idea of this question "Why should that be true?" not "What is an immediate cause?". There's nothing inherent to approaching gender equality from a masculine side that necessitates being a narrow-minded dick, and yet here we are. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
It is a damn shame, since the story about the Canadian shelter is true and there were in fact women (not many, but they were there) mocking this guy when his shelter had to close. Bearing in mind there seem be be a lot of crazies, I happen to think at least some of it is because the social justice people would rather highlight the lunatics than actually help the people who are trying to do good. It'd be a bit like making Mary Daly the face of feminism to the mainstream media; not exactly since the proportion of crazies seems higher in the men's rights circles, but you get my drift. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but then the closest thing to a focal point the movement has is Paul Elam's unrestrained misogyny. Or /r/mensrights maybe(look at the top rated posts for any given month there and it's not a good thing). ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
It does seem like a bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario as to which caused the other, but yeah; I understand why it's this way now, it's just disappointing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
When you build yourself an echo chamber, you get screech feedback. The thing is, there are many, many legitimate men's issues. Few of them are fairly or pertinently described by the "patriarchy" narrative, either. All this tells men who are concerned about this stuff is that their own lived experience doesn't count for much; there's even a cant phrase for that, "privilege blindness", &c. and &c. So we run them off here, and send them to the places on the internet that will listen. And guess what else they find there. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Of course there are lots of legitimate men's issues; if you observe men's lib movements you would see them tackling and discussing such issues in tandem with the feminist movement. Feminists can and sometimes do discuss the issues men face, as in the link I posted above about the draft, but by and large they have no obligation to. Also, that's not what privilege blindness is. It's a refusal to acknowledge certain benefits granted arbitrarily to you that aren't granted to other types of people. White women may be blind to the privileges they have over black people. Gay men might be blind to the privileges they have over trans women. By and large the most privileged group and the one most likely to be affected by privilege blindness are the typical "cis het white male" designation, which is why it's a rare blessing to be able to have outspoken allies like PZ Meyers able to acknowledge their own privilege. Withoutaname (talk) 05:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
As a white cishet male from the upper middle class, I must confess that I am at a loss as to what legitimate men's issues there are. So far as I can see, I am at the apex of the pyramid. I have no problems that can't be defined as "so first world as to be negligible". If you could enlighten me as to what these issues are, they would be greatly appreciated. --Castaigne (talk) 07:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
To use an anecdotal example I, who am essentially all of these things, have run into a very alarming amount of resistance for choosing to work at a day program for disabled adults. There are a surprising number of people who think only women should be working in this field, and the speakers of the cant pretty much invariably tell me to fuck myself by, instead of actually acknowledging the issues I'm describing, say "Well it's because women are traditionally caretakers, so it's sexism against women". While this is possibly true in broad philosophical strokes, the end pragmatic result is that I face a lot of mistrust (for instance, women can toilet male clients but not the other way around—which is a much larger issue than you'd think) simply for being a man. So yeah, I'd call that sexist against men. To use a more obvious example, and one that my uncle (again all of these things) has run into, men have a very hard time being believed in or getting assistance to get out of domestic violence situations. This is fairly demonstrative of the problem. And as noted above, even if a man can get out of the situation, in contrast to all the battered women's hotlines and shelters (which I know are far from perfect, but they're something) there's usually not even that out there to help him. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
If he's still facing domestic violence, I recommend which supports male victims of domestic violence while also not downplaying female victims of domestic violence. Withoutaname (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Thankfully he's out of it now, but I'll tell him so he can spread it to other people who can use it. That sort of thing does somewhat brighten my outlook. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
MRA Answers: I will utilize the background of my upbringing to answer your concerns. First, why are you working a menial job? If you are working at a day program for disabled adults, then you should be working in a management capacity, which is free of the stigma, as nursing and teaching (at least, outside of college) are the province of the gentler sex and manual labor...well, as my father always said, "Manual labor is for Manuel La Bor." As for domestic violence, does your uncle not know how to control his woman? What about calling his cop friends to give her a few days in the hoosegow or his medico friends to do an involuntary commitment for observation?
No, Actually Serious Answers: OK, so those are two actual concerns to be dealt with. The only people I have ever seen address them? The dreaded Social Justice Warriors. Whenever I have encountered those issues in the MRAsphere - be it Elam's group, MGOTW, Roosh's people, the MRA reddits - they are completely dismissed in favor of more attack against the femjays. The issue about shelters for men? They wouldn't even donate to keep the SINGLE ONE in Canada open. The general opinion was that those men should "man up" and use their fists like God intended. So why do you think they refuse to support such things? As opposed to non-MRAs, like The Good Men Project?
I would also like to point out, quite seriously, that the issues you describe can really be solved very simply with more money. --Castaigne (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The Irony Is Palpable[edit]

I really love how you banned me and then said that the MRM is such an echo chamber while here you all sit, twittering away with no other voices. But, SocJus can rarely appreciate irony it seems.

Regarding one of the earlier posts, when has the MRM 'degraded' female victims of domestic violence? Most of the time the movement is calling attention to male victims. Ah, but let me guess. If someone says that men face problems, that person is also doubly saying that women don't. Delicious reasoning, absolutely delicious. — Unsigned, by: CaptainCaptain / talk / contribs

"SocJus?" I wish Orwell was here to slap you in the face for appropiating Newspeak like that. Comparing internet social justice to IngSoc is like comparing apples to the maltese falcon. I don't understand how either of those things are remotely equivalent. Quit being an edgy teenager.
The movement does call attention to male victims, I'll give you that... And the earlier response about the MRM degrading female victims might be less than substatiated, but even so, MRA's bring up abuse on men as a weapon against feminists, as if to imply that feminists don't care about male abuse victims (protip: we do.)
"Twittering away with no other voices" Maybe if the 'other voices' weren't dipshits. --Trinity (talk) 04:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't even know if you're willing to look past the red piller mindset, but here are some links about MRM not caring one whit for men's rights:
Here are some feminist organizations who do:
If you're interested in genuine discussion, you might fare better next time if you didn't ask loaded questions and other/dehumanize anyone who dare disagree with you into the broad umbrella category of "SocJus". Withoutaname (talk) 04:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hahahahahahahaha feminist propaganda sites don't count as evidence. 'We hunted the mammoth'? shall I bring up Mein Kampf to show you why the Jews should die? Also being against parental leave doesn't mean being against men's rights, so your third source is also broken. Sure, some feminists might have raised concern about male domestic violence victims. But you know when Erin Pizzey released her study that showed that a little over half the women in her shelter committed violence themselves? Wanna know who made her so scared she called for police custody? Not men, not servants of the patriarchy. Feminists. And many feminists since have disagreed with her findings, despite numerous studies finding the same results. So sure, some feminists might raise awareness. The majority don't, and prefer to spit in the water.

Tumblr doesn't count as a source, a la Mein Kampf analogy, but in the first blog we see that some some pro-women organizations tried to change the draft. Once each. The effort was ASTRONOMICAL wasn't it? Just, monumental! You'd think the feminists would have learnt that in order to change legislation one has to try, try, try again. Not give it a once-over and run with tails between legs. Your second source broken down is "DAH PATE WEE ARC EE is to blame!" and I'm not religious enough to believe in the patriarchy.

Now for your precious 'Men's liberation movement!' When one goes to the MensLib reddit, we see it has 4 thousand subscribers and at the time of posting, 10 online users. Compare it to Men's Rights reddit, with 120,000 subscribers and 135 online users. So, in short, 30 times more subs and 13 times more online users. It is quite obvious that your precious puppet movement is unpopular due to the fact that it takes what the MRM already talks about and parades it like it's new, while also curtailing to its feminist overlords like a good puppy. Suffice it to say, I somehow doubt that the 'Men's Liberation Movement' will live particularly successfully.

Now, to link back to your first whining about the fact I refer to you people as SocJus, there is a reason for this. Numerous reasons, actually. Let's start with the fact a lot of you have a cutsie, sinister motto, that being "LISTEN AND BELIEVE" which was one of Anita Sarkeesian's slogans. Sinister slogans sound familiar to you? Secondly, you wish to edit speech to suit your agenda, thus you have your own Newspeak. "They're not (insert race here) people, they're 'people of color'. That's not racism, it's a white person! You can't say that, but here, we've made a useless synonym for you!" Thirdly, you have an equivalent of Orwell's middle class. IngSoc tightened its hold on the middle class because they were most scared of that class, and SocJus' middle class is instead the straight white male. That is the 'class' you fear most. And finally, you wish to have as much flipping power as possible, smashing aside freedom of speech and justified argument in favor of totalitarian control and subjugation, all in the name of a false greater good and done to spite the imagined god of the Patriarchy. You make IngSoc look like angry kittens. CaptainCaptain (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

"Those politically correct MISANDRISTS are LITERALLY WORSE THAN INGSOC!!!! r/mensrights has more subscribers on reddit dot com than /r/menslib, so that means MY dick is BIGGER than YOURS!!! Where are the rights for WHITE PEOPLE????? Turning of Youtube comments is Orwellian!!!!! SOCJUS!!! HUGBOX!!! CIRCLEJERK!!! I just want REASONED DEBATE, you SJW GARBAGE!!!!" --Trinity (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Hahahaha I know I crushed the arguments but there's no reason to get so whiny. Take a chill pill, relax. CaptainCaptain (talk) 03:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
"Hahahaha, I won because I said so, no reason to get so whiny." I wish the J. Jonah laughing video could be funny twice, so I could link to it again. --Trinity (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


Why is he shitting up his own page here and Talk:Men's rights movement#I fail to see how the movement is misogynist?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Currently sitting that the top of /r/MR. No comment necessary. Cykosys (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

What about it? I've seen feminists argue that rhetoric. Congrats, you failed to prove anything! CaptainCaptain (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Tu quoque. Stop. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 04:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
And while we're on the subject: Dismissing all feminist sites is a genetic fallacy. Yes, feminists dismiss MRA sites. Yes, RWians have done the same. I try not to, because none of this makes any of that logically valid. Go check those WHTM links. FuzzyCatPotato of the Naked Dwarfs (talk/stalk) 04:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
There's a reason I call WHTM info propaganda. Just because it says what you want it to say doesn't mean it's right. I'm willing to accept info from feminist sites, but WHTM enjoys forcing the narrative.CaptainCaptain (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Dean Esmay wants fathers to murder family court judges instead of commit suicide because they lost custody. That's not taken out of context and that's exactly what WHTM would cover.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Saying something is likely to happen and saying something absolutely should happen are not the same thing, SocJus. I don't know who this Dean Esmay guy is, I've never heard of him in MRM circles. Also, in one of the links I provided at one point and which I could provide again if needed, I can show you that courts nearly always favor the woman for child custody even disregarding the children's opinions. Also, initiatives to split custody fifty fifty unless evidence against a partner is brought forward have been smacked down by feminists numerous times. Thus in summary, it is not crazy to assume someone would point out that a man who has lost his children and most likely his money in a divorce can go insane from it, and that some men will take out their insanity on the world rather than killing themselves. This really isn't a tough concept to grasp. CaptainCaptain (talk) 10:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Dean Esmay used to be one of the major contributors to A Voice For Men. How the fuck could you have never heard of him?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Nothing says 'intellectually honest' like ignoring all points in an argument and then finding a childish reason to kick the person who brought forth the offending sensibilities. Address the actual points or go back to the schoolyard. CaptainCaptain (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what I have to address because you're just going to whine on and on about "SocJus" like every other asshole reactionary who posts on Reddit. Dean Esmay is a major figure and the fact you're feigning ignorance of him means you're full of shit. And men's rights activism doesn't do shit for men in divorce proceedings when feminists would be more likely to actually address sexist practices in deciding who gets custody because defaulting to the mother is sexist just as much as defaulting against the father. Which RationalWiki already covers on its men's rights movement article which you refuse to actually read and instead spend the past month bitching endlessly on this page and the talk page of the other. So unless you have actual concerns that haven' already been debunked by someone else who wrote about them on this site already, you can take your concern trolling back to /r/theredpill, /r/mensrights, /r/tumblrinaction, or whatever subreddit of your choosing and complain that the "SocJuc idiots" at RationalWiki couldn't possibly dent your ironclad logic.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
You haven't refuted shit! All you do is whine about names and throw weasel words around like they'll save you! Feminists have tried to get rid of the sexist practices of divorce turnouts? Bullshit! Where's your evidence? I have evidence of feminist groups smacking aside initiatives that were dreamt up by lawmakers whose ideals at the time aligned with the MRM! I can easily provide links for them but you'll probably just delete them. Your claim that the MRM doesn't do anything for men when it tried to engineer the initiatives (that feminists attacked) makes your entire stance trash! You have no evidence of feminists ever trying to alter the divorce court to ensure an unbiased system where custody is split unless a partner is proven insane and alimony is abolished (because it's a stupid concept). Once again you link back to Dean like some child pointing at someone's shoes and saying they won because of them. Oh no, I can't remember the name of someone who USED to write for AVFM, a place I don't frequent anywhere near as much as MRM forums. CaptainCaptain (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Read this fucking website you dense mother fucker because everything I've said to you is already written somewhere else on this website outside of this one page and Talk:Men's rights movement where it seems is all you fucking post. Read Men's rights movement beyond the fucking talk page and look at everything everyone else has already written, and provided citations for. I am not going to do it for you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
"Hans? Is the Nazi party good?" "Absolutely, friend. You see this pamphlet from the Fuhrer? Look at all the good things it says about us!" Yeah, that doesn't sound like good evidence. You've fought yourself into a corner and then I blew you through the wall. Also your point about previous citations is null because those citations are not regarding feminism helping the plight of men in divorce courts, I have no idea what kinds tangent you're trying to travel. I've read your entire article on the MRM you quaint little bun, but reading something does not automatically make the reader believe you. Because there are some people who prefer to utilize deductive reasoning to find the truths behind words and unfortunately some words do not carry much truth with them. Your 'article' is one such thing, as are the related articles I have per used more briefly. CaptainCaptain (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
If you don't believe it then that's not my problem. It has all the arguments laid out. Your refusal to acknowledge them just shows how close minded you are. We're done.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Also considering that this is the second time you've referenced Hitler, Godwin's Law basically decrees you've lost the argument.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Hehehehehe adieu, mon cherie. This was far too easy. It would have been so much better for you if you had cited evidence except, naturally, the evidence for your claims does not exist. Also, mentioning Hitler doesn't falsify arguments anymore than saying the word 'bebop' does. Your cutsie little 'laws' will not save your trash arguments, lack of evidence, weasel words and poor hurt fee-fees. Ah, but it's been so fun. CaptainCaptain (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Your arguments have relied on making references to how your idealogical opponents are akin to Nazis so that basically means you have no real arguments and are just being an asshole troll. Good bye.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't sound at all like evidence for your claims. Your refutations consist of whining and, for the third time now, weasel words and missing evidence. No amount of bawling about my analogies will change that. CaptainCaptain (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
All of the statements I've made have been based on content written elsewhere on this project that you've already decided to dismiss because to you it's just "SocJus" garbage so I suspect there's really nothing out there that will get you out of the red pill rabbit hole you've already fallen through.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of dismissing arguments based on affiliations...I requested evidence for your claims (that being feminism has helped men drastically, more specifically in the cases of divorce court proceedings) yet all you do is complain. CaptainCaptain (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps I spoke wrong (weeks ago) but it's rather that feminists have the same goals in mind as MRAs claim to have and that's to end sexist discrimination in courts, for men and women, rather than MRAs seeking just to spite feminism. But you're too far deluded to be convinced of anything otherwise and you think the same of me. I'll let someone else deal with your concern trolling.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

MRAs are a Hivemind[edit]

Wikipedia says "Male privilege is a concept for examining social, economic, and political advantages or rights that are made available to men solely on the basis of their sex. A man's access to these benefits may also depend on other characteristics such as race, sexual orientation and social class.[1][2][3] The use of male pronouns in language to refer to both sexes is often cited as an example, as well as the preference for sons in some cultures. Male privilege is often examined alongside the concept of patriarchy within the feminist movement" and TV Tropes says "Men's Rights Activists" tend to find plenty to disagree with in feminism-centered websites, which has resulted in Flame Wars, trolling and worse." Does that mean that all men are automatically guilty of the oppression of women or do Men's rights activist somehow represent all men?-- (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Privilege is not a matter of individual agency. It is there because society is set up a particular way, not because people decide to be privileged. So no, no-one is automatically guilty, and MRA's represent only themselves. If you advance the reduction of gender bias (whichever gender's specific disadvantages you focus on) the only thing you are guilty of is egalitarianism. Unfortunately lots of people who identify as MRA's don't do that. — Unsigned, by: / talk


==Actual Answer==

I'm gonna do something innovative here and actually answer the thread's questions. Men's rights, in the concept of equality for men and women, is not in any way misogynistic. Most MRAs, however, are not advocating this. They are hiding behind the idea of gender equality to advocate for patriarchy. This is why they are misogynistic.

Just came here to applaud this answer.
Also if OP want's to avoid aligning himself with the vulgar popular image of the MRA or the histrionic popular image of the feminist, he could just refer to himself as an egalitarian. Problem solved.


Some people are having trouble with the word "patriarchy," so I'll explain it. Patriarchy is a cultural and socio-economic system which gives men higher economic/domestic/social positions then women, for other no reason than gender. There are many restrictions on both genders, since they each have a certain role to play in the system. Now, some feminists (the Tumblr type) do exactly what the MRAs do, and use patriarchy as a shield to hide their oddly reactionary agendas. These may be the people everyone is upset about.

How and why do many MRAs support patriarchy?[edit]

They generally want a return to "traditional" gender roles, in all areas of life. This is why there is significant overlap between the Men's Right movement and groups such as the Redpillers/PUAs, neocons, etc. Again, they are hiding between gender equality (equal rights for men) to advocate this.

Some people in the Men's Right movement legitimately want equality, but either misunderstand the problems, think their personal experiences represent the state of all society, or just don't know much about the character of the MRAs.

Do you have evidence for a majority of MRAs calling for 'traditional gender roles'? Also, you realize that neocons do not have anything to do with the MRM, and the Redpillers and PUAs actually sniff at the MRM? The RPers and PUAs do not give a shit about the MRM, so your point makes no sense. CaptainCaptain (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

What if I want equality, but am a man?[edit]

You can be a feminist. Why? Because patriarchy actually harms men too. It's a social order, not a mass conspiracy by men. For instance, one of the MRA's legitimate complaints the large amount of male rape that occurs in prisons and similar environments. The motives behind these things have firm basis in patriarchal notions of how a man is ranked in relation to other men. A man who has lots of sex - in particular, sex where he is the penetrater - is seen as superior. It a sign of status. Many rapists in prison even claim that raping another man is not a homosexual activity, because they are the ones doing the penetrating.

Another example is the fact that women overwhelmingly win custody trials, even when they are less qualified to take care of the children in question. Society automatically associates men with brutality and a lack of emotion, while women are seen as inherently more patient and better able to care for children. As a result, courts will rule in the woman's favor, even if the man clearly has better ability to care for the children, emotional and otherwise.

Again, patriarchy does not just mean men > women. It a complex social system that restricts everyone involved. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that turning men's issues around and saying "oh, it's really the patriarchy" sounds like feminists trying to make everyone's struggles about themselves, as if they can't stand any gender issues that don't paint them as the victim in some way. You say that patriarchy doesn't just mean "men > women" but the is what the word implies and lots of people use it as such.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, I'd rather they just call it "machismo" rather than "patriarchy". Patriarchy already meant something when social thinkers started using it to talk about the toxic effects of machismo, and just calling it what it is makes it clearer what people are talking about.KrytenKoro (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Not really. Patriarchy creates "machismo" as part of the role men are expected to play. Also, saying men's issues are due to patriarchy is not "feminists saying everyone's struggles [are] about themselves." Men's struggles are due to patriarchy, because patriarchy encompasses all gender-based attitudes and expectations in our society. If people are using different definitions than the academic term (which they are), that really isn't my fault.
If this is just about clarifying, it's probably better to teach them the actual definition of "patriarchy," as opposed to trying to speak their unique colloquial. There are just too many different definitions floating around. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
They won't provide a concrete definition of the patriarchy because it is a wishy-washy boogeyman who can be construed to do anything and everything with no resources or personnel. Basically a devil god for a religion. CaptainCaptain (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
"The patriarchy" is a metaphor for "daddy". The father who was abusive or neglectful, or overly strict, or whatever, whose characteristics are now being projected onto all men. The fact that the majority of heterosexual women (especially those who are young and beautiful) prefer that men be in charge (even if they won't admit it, even to themselves, openly in so many words), and act accordingly, because they like the benefits of male dominion and find it sexy, is an inconvenient reality that feminists try to sweep under the rug. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I love how your claim to be able to read minds is implicitly a more convenient reality, or at least, more real than academic studies demonstrating that it's hardly a case of projection. You're adorable.KrytenKoro (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The actual methodology and results of the study are hidden behind a paywall and the research was conducted by the Department of Psychology, instead of, I don't know, perhaps the Department of Criminology? People who might actually know something about the criminal mind? CaptainCaptain (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't feminists also do plenty of mind-reading? Their writings are rife with appeals to motive, which isn't surprising because feminism is basically a subset of socialism, which is always saying that the privileged just don't give a damn about anyone else. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course they say they'd rape women if they could get away with it[edit]

"Nearly one in three college men admit they might rape a woman if they knew no one would find out and they wouldn’t face any consequences, according to a new study conducted by researchers at the University of North Dakota."

Sure, why wouldn't a third of men respond that way? There's a lot of sexual frustration out there that guys haven't figured out a way to resolve. American girlfriends and wives routinely deny their guys as much sex as they'd want, perhaps not realizing how this harms the relationship. A lot of guys don't know how to be masculine men who will be found sexually attractive by young, hot women, or how to make an approach that will get them laid.

We should try to reduce the amount of unnecessary sexual frustration out there; we should try to prevent or fix situations where potentially high-quality guys whom women would want if they could get their act together, aren't able to reach their full potential and lead mutually beneficial, satisfying sex lives. Also, the standard "financial support in exchange for an all-you-can-eat sex buffet" relationship dynamic should be reinstated. People speak of guys feeling "entitled" to sex; probably where a lot of that comes from, is when guys like Elliot Rodger (who probably had some potential, if he'd gotten and followed the right advice) see that they're losing out to guys who are lower-quality by every measure other than game. Women won't change their preferences, though, so men have to adjust to that by learning game.

Some of the dysfunction in the relations between the sexes could be resolved, but we'll always be a mildly polygynous species with some guys who can't get laid; the truly inferior guys, though, who are aware of their inferiority and know that they don't really deserve sex, are probably less of a threat than those who have a somewhat justified sense of entitlement. In some ways, though, it really doesn't matter so much what guys would do if they could get away with it, if they can't get away with it. Knowing this statistic, maybe women should avoid situations that would allow men to rape them and get away with it. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Advocating "rape instinct" and incel bullshit? Yeah, I think we're done here. --Castaigne2 (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Incels are a reality that society is going to have to deal with. Men are not going to tolerate being sexually disenfranchised unless they truly feel they're inferior. Of course, many incels are that way because they cockblock themselves; they may actually have women who want them but they don't know how to capitalize on it. (Oh, did I say something about a rape instinct? I don't remember that.) It's in everyone's interests for men to feel that, through self-improvement, they can find a way to get consensual sex. This is part of what the PUA and Red Pill movements are about. To expect that high quality men "supreme gentlemen" will just acquiesce to permanent involuntary celibacy, if they have an alternative available, is unrealistic. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 05:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I think adults should probably be expected to control themselves. How are we supposed to make people want to give each other sex? Are you really justifying raping people?TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
What is the best way to get them to control themselves? It has to be taken into account that sex is a powerful drive and that it can have a pretty negative effect on young men to feel that there is no relief on the horizon for sexual frustration. What can be done about that?
Some rapes are apparently by guys who have been friendzoned. They caused their own friendzoning by not making their intentions clear from the beginning, and finally they decide, "Fuck it, I'm just gonna rape her, since my friend status has allowed me to get into her apartment to help move her sofa, but will apparently never get me into her pants." The Red Pill community teaches that they should instead work on self-improvement to make themselves as confident and attractive as possible; make their intentions clear to attractive young women they want to fuck; and move on to other women who might be more interested, if they get rejected. People get caught up in saying, "Oh, it's bad that men don't accept women just wanting to be friends!" but what's the root cause of this disgruntlement? Probably a lack of game. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
For all your blather, prostitution exists and in many places is legal. "No one was giving me sex" is not, in any possible way, a rational excuse for rape. Even in the fevered setting you're constructing, prostitutes still exist, so getting "frustrated" and "taking the sex" is, even denying that women should be allowed agency, theft. In an actual ethical setting, it's also, you know, denying a specific woman agency and violating her person because you felt you were more entitled to her body than she was.
(Also, I love how you're desperately avoiding the obvious result that your setup would logically put your own body at the beck and call of anyone sexually frustrated who was attracted to you.)
"What can be done?" How about, stop advocating rape, and be willing to pay a willing prostitute if your balls are so gotdamn blue. You don't deserve even a damn molecule of anyone else's bodies.KrytenKoro (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you understand his comments if you think he is talking about his own lack of sex. CaptainCaptain (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you understand his comments if you think I didn't already address them, and if you think they have any more rational basis than mindless frustration.KrytenKoro (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Prostitutes don't give you the full girlfriend experience, though. What if you get emotionally attached to your prostitute, and then she wants to change careers, or move out of the area, or whatever? The grief can be overwhelming. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 01:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
You said: "Knowing this statistic, maybe women should avoid situations that would allow men to rape them and get away with it." Could you specify how this should even be accomplished without drastically cutting into a woman's personal liberty? Should a woman always look out to get home before dawn before the freaks come out (who are in some cases even predators during daylight in lonely alleys)? Or always take care to always be accompanied by a 'guardian'? In societies with strict gender roles where feminism is nearly non-existent, you still have men raping women and even be rewarded for it and/or the female victim punished for it. This leads me to the conclusion that the problem seems to be with predatory men and not women who decline to ride an incel's dick. Also the study didn't mention if only incels said they would rape a woman if there were no consequences - it could very well also be guys who have 'game' responding in this despicable manner. NameThatNobodyTakes (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's a large number of situations. It's more like, if she's with some dude at a bar and says, "Hey, now that I'm totally shitfaced, why don't you drive me to your isolated cabin in the woods so we can hang out in privacy where no one would be able to hear any cries for help" and then once there she starts giving him a blowjob, and at the last minute says, "Actually, I've decided I just want to go home now" it's like leaving your car unlocked in a bad neighborhood with your brand new laptop, XBox, etc. all in their original boxes plainly visible. Yeah, crooks shouldn't steal it, but you're really tempting them. Your insurance adjuster is going to be a little pissed if you file a theft claim and tell him those facts.
A guardian situation isn't all that impractical. There are countries (the Philippines comes to mind) where fathers typically impose a rule that their daughters don't go out with men without a chaperone such as a sister accompanying them. I'm sure it cuts down on date rape (as well as consensual sex). The way they look at it, it's not only bad for women's virtue to be forcibly taken; they also need to be watched to make sure they don't succumb to the temptation to give it away outside of marriage. In those cultures, sons and daughters are expected to live with their family until they get married and have a family of their own, so there really aren't a lot of situations where they would be vulnerable to getting raped. Women don't even like to live alone bachelorette-style in the Philippines, because they get lonely; from childhood, they're used to constantly having people around. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't have to list the entire set of all possible scenarios which could be potentially dangerous for women. The ones I named are everyday situations which any woman could experience, like getting home late from work or shopping for groceries, so don't act my examples don't encompass a large number of situations, contrary to your convoluted example case, which ironically is not a situation which an incel could possibly experience, as it would take "game" to get a woman drunk and persuade her to accompany him to his creepy crib in the woods.
Also you act as if a woman consents to a sexual encounter, she automatically revokes all her future rights to change her mind later on - but well why I am kidding myself because according to you, women are comparable to inanimate objects like cars and tech products... I guess life-like robot sex slaves for the deprived can't come to market soon enough.
Therefore I'm not really surprised that your second paragraph basically endorses less equality and freedom for women as they seem to be only valuable items ripe for the picking if unattended in your eyes. NameThatNobodyTakes (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
The possibility of getting raped while coming home from work is another reason why women shouldn't work outside the home. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
MRE have you considered leaving the degenerate feminist West, with all that nasty consensual sex, and joining the righteous upstanding men in ISIS? They too have seen the light, and realize that women are best kept under close watch to maintain their mythical and very important sexual purity. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
It's easier to import a foreign woman to the West. However, for those who took the Red Pill too late, it's still necessary to deal with the consequences of previous relationships with degenerate feminist women. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 01:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Your reasoning for women not working outside the home sounds disturbingly like Saudi Arabia's reasoning for not letting them drive. Then again, from what you've said, I wouldn't be surprised if you're a fan of them.Teurastaja (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I doubt he's supportive of the royal regime which has views basically identical to his, because there are MRAs who have the absurd notion that feminism is equal to Islamism, an opinion which even gets backbench support from Richard Dawkins, who claims to be a feminist (as long as he can yet again bash Islam in this case). NameThatNobodyTakes (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

"Masculism vs Mens' rights", Which is less abhorrent?[edit]

Masculism unfortunately has been coopted by male supremacists, when it should logically be the other side of the coin to feminism, it should be focused on dismantling traditional toxic gender roles that harm men, as well as fixing the socioeconomic factors that keep men oppressed and suffering in stoic silence. Feminism was about female abolition, so logically masculism should be male abolition.

MRAs however don't accept "gender studies", let alone "activism" as being useful or important, the majority are explicitly antifeminists that do little else but post screeds online. They are mostly useless conservative reactionaries that don't see a problem with toxic masculinity (many of them are offended by the term and are happy to defend outdated traditionalisms).

Both pro-gender-studies Masculists and antifeminist-MRAs have vaguely similar views on mandatory military service and how men are treated in mental illness/violence/rape/etc cases. However MRAs are too arrogant and pretentious to ever accept the legitimacy of the experts that have literally written the books on Gender Discourse. MRAs petulantly ignore all the terminology that academics have developed to talk about gender issues. In fact they spend lots of time making fun of the concepts of "patriarchy" or "microaggression", even though those ideas could easily be used to help men. It's funny how conservatives think gender studies is useless, but they can't even be bothered to do a modicum of research when they are literally talking about gender? Dunning-Kruger effect if I ever saw it Calamondin (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The MRAs mock the 'academic' ideas of 'patriarchy' and 'microaggression' because they are both bullshit notions. The gender studies morons have never brought evidence of an actual cabal of penis-drawing men who rule the world with iron fists, desperate to put men on top (while simultaneously ensuring as many men die as possible) because no evidence exists. And when no evidence exists for a notion, rational people will scorn it and laugh at it because it is nonsense, and thus shall not be acknowledged as fact or something useful in discourse. CaptainCaptain (talk) 07:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
"The gender studies morons have never brought evidence of an actual cabal of penis-drawing men who rule the world with iron fists, desperate to put men on top" Hey cool strawman, do you do balloon animals as well? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
You say the MRAs should stop making fun of the notion of patriarchy, which means you believe in the patriarchy, and theatrizrchy, when described at all, becomes what I outlined. It is an argument that when it is actually spelled out looks fucking insane. CaptainCaptain (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
MRAs AND Masculinity in a nutshell - "These effete fags who don’t even lift clutch their pearls when Trump channels the spirit of his blood and soil White Warriors and speaks in the MASCULINE language of the Tribe Realtalk." (Source) --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
How is one PUA on his own blog the entire MRM? That's pretty disingenuous. CaptainCaptain (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I do not see the difference between MRAs, PUAs, Incels, or MGTOWs. Since they all share 85-90% of the same beliefs, it's like arguing about the differences between Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists, Trotskyites, and Maoists. They're all Communists, so what boots it? --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
You forgot so-called "Nice Guys" (the manosphere lingo, of course, not actually nice guys).--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC) 20:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Aren't those just a subset of the incels? (talk) 20:54, 25 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
(edit conflict) Maybe (the first time I heard about any of this whole manosphere crap was here on RW. Before that, I never heard about either Gamergate or MRAs, probably because I don't move in these sewers circles of the net, where that all happened).--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 21:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC) 21:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Them too. There are so many variants, I can't be bothered to keep track. It's like trying to keep track of the various libertarian strands or some bullshit. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, MRAs are not part of any patriarchy, they cant live up to their narrow view of masculinity and are therefore abject failures. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I think they believe a patriarchy exists, but that it only benefits the PUA alphas. So the incels, beta-cucks, MGTOWs, and whatever else they call themselves are mad that they don't get to enjoy patriarchy because they're such failures. The social pyramid is Alphas on top, then women, then the manosphere losers at the bottom. It's really funny. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Uh, how would the manosphere losers be at the bottom of the social pyramid that they studied? The redpillers were the ones who analyzed the alpha/beta dynamic while the MGTOWs developed the alpha/beta/omega dynamic, plus the PUAs and RedPillers both pull a lot of sex and for those two groups that IS the success criteria, so how would that make them losers if your standing is obviously 'no sex equals loser', a stance which is in itself pretty discriminatory. CaptainCaptain (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Sex is the standard they're using. As I said, the PUA/redpiller alphas are at the top of the hierarchies, but the others I listed, incels, betas, MGTOWs, none of which get laid, are at the bottom. Just because they designed the system doesn't mean they'd put themselves on top, in fact since these people constantly complain about unfair it all is it's clear they designed the system precisely to put themselves at the bottom. It seems you misunderstood my comment. Lord Aeonian (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The MGTOWs don't complain about not getting laid. That's a pretty stupid statement. Incels and betas sure, except betas aren't necessarily part of the manosphere, they're a classification created by RP. Do you even know what you're talking about, or is an MRA and the MGTOW and a PUA all the same thing now? CaptainCaptain (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
They don't? Dude, every time I've ever trolled through the MGTOW forums, they're always talking about how they went MGTOW because they couldn't get laid. That's a complaint, right there. And then they complain they can't get laid because the FemJays are preventing sexbots from being built.
And yes, I consider MRAs, MGTOWs, and PUAs to be all part of the Manospherian Bullshit. As I said before, who cares what type of Communist you are? --Castaigne2 (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal and can be refuted with anecdotal evidence. A look through the MGTOW subreddit shows no posts regarding what you say. Also, the MRM for the most part dislikes PUAs, the MGTOWs don't care much about the MRM and they don't deal with the PUAs, so even though it all falls under the manosphere it doesn't fall under the MRM. Every post you make just shows that you know little about this topic. CaptainCaptain (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
They have a subreddit? Nice to know. I'm talking about the forums at
And really, all I'm hearing is "The Maoists hate the Stalinists, and the Stalinists don't care for the Trotskyites or the Bakuninists..." Dude, it doesn't matter what particular theology sect a Manospherian subscribes to. It's like fights between Baptists and Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons; they're all Protestants, so who gives as damn? The base of their doctrine is the same and can be distilled down to "Those goddamn evil femjay bitches." They choose to deal with their nemesis in different ways, and argue about that, but it doesn't make them right. Or look any different to those of us who AREN'T Manospherians. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
From his profile and talk page, DlagonDlagon CaptainCaptain seems to be a one trick pony. Although it's nice to have you on the same side for once Castaingne2. :) Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

look... I "may" be misusing the wiki here, but, since the talk page was red linked, which on other wiki's, means disabled, I've got something to say.

first off, both sides are right. Neither the MRA, or feminists, are wrong in what they are, by majority, trying to accomplish. This statement will be explained further down.

second off, all groups have radicals. I dont care if your MRA , feminist , baptist , christian scientist , libertarian , tea party , or the girl scouts of america. You. Your group. has. radicals.


now, BOTH sides, have the same, or similer, "type" of radicalism. this radicalism, is simply given a different name, with the same set of conditions. There are men who say there critics are worse then, or, deserving of rape/rapists . And, there are WOMEN who say there critics are worse then, or, deserving of rape/rapists , (original video ) ( relevent time, 1:30 to 2:40 ) . there are men who hate the "gender standerds" set by traditional social values, that influence political and social decision making, and, think the instances they bring up that effect them, are because of "women" . There are women who hate the "gender standerds" set by traditional social values, that influence political and social decision making, and, think the instances they bring up that effect them, are because of "men" . there are casses of domestic abuse to women, that arnt taken seriously, baised or an outdated and wicked social value . There are casses of domestic abuse to men that arnt taken seriously, based on an outdated and wicked social value.

here's another example

though, many of the beliefs presented may be argued, the general tone, of an underlying problem with traditional standerds for men, can be seen here

does this seem "familier" somehow? ... hmm... : /

the context DO bear a striking resembelence to each other....

why dont we try on the " health and wellness", a more "concrete" example, as... well, deaths and hospital trips, alongside counceling, seem like catagories, with readily available numbers

lets take a look at major issues for womens health, not relating to biological gender. : /

hmm... wel... baised on news media, health reports, and... admitedly, comedy programs, kind of expected to find that... : / yeah, we TOTALY need to put a stop to this.

how about men?

wow... that... thats almost as bad, worse if no one talks about it. : / but, hey... they "say" heart attacks are quick.... : /

what about gender role? : / yes, BOTH sides are directly de-valued by traditional gender roles. case in point for men.

if you want examples of female sexist steriotypes, you can find them everywhere from "leave it to beaver", to literature, to scholerly articles, to history classes, to even old "merry melodies/loonie toons" episodes. : / seriously, its WELL documented

the fact is, there are radicals, extreamist, and scumbags on BOTH sides. The problem is, NEITHER side is really willing to say that "these people are NOT part of our community" publicly. : / the best you'll get from ether, is "anti feminists" calling those who abuse or deride women "pickup artists", and, proffessing a desire to bash such peoples teeth in. And, before you acuse this of being a patriarcle trick, most of the guys I know who profess such ideas, say it was because THEY were hurt, by women with similer ideas and expectations, and, dont believe its right, regardless of gender, and, have sworn of romantic relationships, sex, and dating, altogether. Whatever opinions you "may" have of this "social isolationism", it DOES speak to a philosophy, of a person who is more "equalitarian", then biased. : /

as for the feminist "pruning" of rogue elements and weeds from the movement... well... I havent seen it since the "disavowment", of that mysandrist who was trying to publish books on how its "appropriate", to drug and cut the genetals off of any man you see, cause, in there words "all men were equaly guilty, and, worthy of the punishment they deserve (that were dished out). yeah.... lets NOT let it get to THAT level in the future, shall we people? : /

the final fact to consider is, if there so similer, why not just make a joint banner? well... considering the rational, less frequently published section of the MRA, were previously feminists, feeling like men had no voice in the issues, as, they suffered as well.... yeah... there probably NOT going back for a while. : / and, as for why feminists dont join the mra... well, the groups been around longer, and, has more influence, degree certified individuals, and political savvy. : / general... its gonna be two banners, that DOESNT mean to goals. : /

You're implying radicalism is somehow bad and then (mis)using horseshoe theory to justify the golden mean fallacy. Sure on both sides there are a certain proportion of shitty people, who by the way aren't necessarily radicals, but by and large from both statistical and anecdotal evidence the greater proportion of shitty people is amongst the men's rights movement. If you want any evidence that MRAs don't care at all about disadvantaged men and even perpetuate discrimination against them sometimes, just take a look at the bullshit documented on WHTM. And that's one reason why, if you've bothered to do your research, the men's lib movement was formed as a response to the continuing sexism in the men's rights movement and rest of the manosphere.
"now, BOTH sides, have the same, or similer, "type" of radicalism" This is a very superficial and quite frankly stupidly reductive analysis of the ideologies behind both movements. Feminism has an academic reputation and the phenomena that it studies, that is patriarchy and related subjects, have academic/scientific backing to them that goes far beyond the credibility of MRAs whining about evil feminists. The very fact that the upper stratum of capitalist society, CEOs and politicans, are almost entirely dominated by men, are frequently dismissed by MRAs as somehow not evidence of the phenomenon they're trying to disprove.
"And, there are WOMEN who say there critics are worse then, or, deserving of rape/rapists" Rebecca Watson doesn't say her critics are worse than rape/rapists, she says they're worse than rape threats. Big difference. And quite frankly the liberals who live in an ideological bubble where they pretend racism and sexism aren't real are worse than openly racist and sexist bigots. Do you want me to quote MLK's speech about white moderates?
"There are casses of domestic abuse to men that arnt taken seriously, based on an outdated and wicked social value" Again, most cases of sexism towards men, or more precisely "feminized" or "emasculated" men, are based on paternalistic attitudes towards women that are again found in patriarchy. None of the sexism against men who are considered "feminine" are based in narratives demeaning men, but demeaning women. Notice how the first male rape crisis center was built by fucking feminists and not the MRA clowns?
"if you want examples of female sexist steriotypes, you can find them everywhere from "leave it to beaver", to literature, to scholerly articles, to history classes, to even old "merry melodies/loonie toons" episodes" Really mate, if you want to find real examples of misandry point me to an actual social system where men have been treated as fucking property by their women counterparts for over a century and then deprived of their right to vote for another.
"The problem is, NEITHER side is really willing to say that "these people are NOT part of our community" publicly" Actually I've found feminists far more willing to criticize TERFs and the like within their own community with greater regularity than I find MRAssholes willing to do the same.
"mysandrist who was trying to publish books on how its "appropriate", to drug and cut the genetals off of any man you see" Oh see, joking about Elliot Rodger and violence against women is fine, but when a woman does it against men it's suddenly misandry. BTW you can tell it's a joke by the fact it's not physically possible. If this was misandry, I'd love to see the reaction on your face as I slowly read aloud the SCUM Manifesto with you.
"for why feminists dont join the mra... well, the groups been around longer, and, has more influence, degree certified individuals, and political savvy" What a convenient explanation to lazily explain away the credibility behind each ideology rather than dealing with FACTS and CRITIQUE.
It's not just the fact that the men's rights movement is comprised of shitty people, it's also a shitty ideology in general. And you're using a terrible analysis and a fallacious argument to disprove "both sides". Withoutaname (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Can we all just agree to ban 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator)]]? He sounds completely mentally retarded — Unsigned, by: / talk


Can we all just agree to ban 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator)]]? He sounds mentally retarded. — Unsigned, by: / talk

He's already banned for being an asshole. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Thats a relief, haha — Unsigned, by: / talk
Other IP - 'mentally pretzelled'/'suffering from galloping deliberate stupidity' are probably more appropriate terms (and not offensive to anyone apart from those to whom it is correctly applied). (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)