Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive10

This is an archive page, last updated 24 April 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Cite hunting

This probably isn't the right forum for this message but I'm in a rare mood and can't be bothered to find the right one. I haven't researched this statistically but I'm fairly confident that the criminal issues that affect men were roughly as bad before feminism even existed. This would be an interesting investigation to make if anyone has the spare time/resources. If a good free article was published with clear sources dismantling this argument it would hopefully do a good deal to discredit this absurd movement. MRA is silly because it demonises women for the many serious problems that do disproportionately affect men, when most of them are caused by systemic failures or other men. Which is sad as they're poisoning the well for anyone interested in actually helping men. "Luckily", in America the issues with the legal system also disproportionately affect minority men, so the racism angle will hopefully be effective in reforming. 81.111.9.175 (talk)

Systemic? So the big bad PATE WEE ARC KEE also enjoys fucking over men as well? The system built to aid and help men and crush everyone else, ALSO crushes the one group of people it was designed to support? Yeah, that reeks of intelligence, doesn't it? 'Poisoning the well for anyone helping men'? Who? The feminists certainly don't help them. And no, just because there might be a slant against minorities in the court system doesn't mean the white men magically get custody of their children and don't have to pay alimony every time. What are you even trying to do? CaptainCaptain (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not really hard to understand that a system that expects men and women to fit in a narrow box (and leaves to women the shitty end of it) hurts men who are outside the box. Classic MRA bullshit, "Patriarchal systems do not benefit every single man to the maximum extent, therefore they can't exist". White privilege doesn't make every single white person richer than Jay-Z either, but that's not really what it means.179.222.133.47 (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

If you have nothing to contribute to this request CaptainCaptain, shut the fuck up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

More excellent refutations. I'm overwhelmed by the logic and reasoning. CaptainCaptain (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

He's asking for help in looking for sources that perhaps show that feminism hasn't actually been the downfall of mankind. You start off by going "THE PATRIARCHY IS A LIE". You don't have any actual logic to your arguments. It's just male tears.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

No one has said feminism is the downfall of mankind so if you want a lack of logic, try that. Also, here's a graph from American Thinker showing murder rates over the last century: http://www.americanthinker.com/legacy_assets/articles/assets/Murders%201.bmp As we can see, the murders have been fluctuating with the status of the economy (big surprise) however an interesting thing to note is that the peak in 1980 was somewhat higher than 1930. Additionally it is unclear whether the trough has reached its lowest point but currently the right end of the graph is a large portion higher than the leftmost end. Make of that what you will. CaptainCaptain (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have been more specific in that I mean mankind rather than humanity. And I don't know what this murder rate graph is supposed to prove. OP's reference to how the legal system is still affected by institutional racism is also off topic as far as I can tell.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The graph shows that the widespread nature of feminism does not really seem to correlate with a change in murder rates though a more in-depth cross-referenced analysis might be more useful. Additionally adding italics to the man in mankind does not really change the argument, once again I'm not sure who's said it in such drastic ways. CaptainCaptain (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the OP here was alleging that feminism had any affect on murder rates. I think he's trying to ask for studies that examine whether or not in cases where one party is a man and the other is a woman that there was or was not a shift in how the case was handled.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Here we have a study on how females are quite often the perpetrators in domestic violence: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V75-Straus-09.pdf And then here is a source examining the facts that men in domestic violence cases are far more likely to be arrested than women: http://web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm I don't know about stats from the early previous century but for certain feminists have not rectified or often even acknowledged such things. CaptainCaptain (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This is also not what OP is asking for. Also, it seems like MRAs like to misconstrue Dr. Strauss's research and your second link is a gish gallop.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You still haven't learnt that saying something does not make it true. Provide evidence for the second link being 'gish-gallop' or concede. OP wants to know how to disprove the (non-existent) claim that feminism ruined 'man'kind and my sources (and I can easily grab more) prove that for certain feminism has not REVERSED the goings-on. CaptainCaptain (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a gish gallop because it is just a list of dozens citations that you expect me to find and read through. OP wants to find sources that disprove MRAs' idea that feminism has resulted in unfair treatment to men in the legal system. Strauss's paper doesn't do that. All of Strauss's work has been misconstrued by the MRM to be in their favor and to explicitly discredit feminism in the manner you provided.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Aw, poor baby doesn't like reading. Well here's an excellent source with numerous academic bases that's been broken down into bullet points: http://www.domesticviolenceresearch.org/pages/12_page_findings.htm I don't believe feminism has RESULTED in unfair treatment, I believe the unfair treatment has been there since the courts became what they are and that feminism has not RECTIFIED the issues present in the court system. And in the words of Mr. Robot, you are either a 0, you do nothing, or you do something, and you become a 1. In regards to court proceedings, feminism is most definitely a 0. Occasionally a negative 1 when it comes to destroying initiatives to rectify court proceedings i.e. mandatory fifty-fifty custody of children unless a partner is proven unfit. CaptainCaptain (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a Gish Gallop because you expect for every single one of those citations to be some sort of rebuttal when there's dozens of them to go through and you expect for me to go through and read and address all of them. And your biases aren't really relevant other than to calling out how backwards you are.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read the third source and are still whining about how the earlier one had too much content for you. You also haven't addressed my points in my previous post. I have now realized you are bloody TRASH at this arguing thing. CaptainCaptain (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You're harping about on claims that reported instances of domestic violence are more often than not woman on man. It seems dubious.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, nothing more 'dubious' than multiple cited sources. Additionally, I've been using them as evidence of the fact that though domestic violence also heavily affects men we do not see a roughly equal number of women being arrested and tried for it. This relates back to OP's posts about MRA criticism because feminists almost never address the DV stats nor do they address divorce court proceedings, as well as the fact feminists have often destroyed counter initiatives. I've already told you numerous times about them denying mandatory fifty-fifty custody, but there's another example of feminists not only ignoring but sometimes destroying things related to bringing up DV stats. Erin Pizzey, who opened the first domestic violence shelter for women, found that around half of the women there perpetrated violence against their partners first. Radical feminists raved and scared her into seeking police custody for speaking her claims. So if feminism does not address and sometimes actively destroys initiatives related to helping men in domestic violence cases and divorce court cases, how exactly are they having a positive effect on men? They are zeroes and negative ones. CaptainCaptain (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I really have nothing to say to you because as I've referenced elsewhere you're too far down the red pill rabbit hole to even begin to accept anything counter to your world view and are simply here to keep posting link after link and comment after comment attacking the idea of feminism. So take this as a victory at having used your mighty straight white boy logic to counter a SocJus cuck. I'm tapping out.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, 'straight white boy' female me, though it's good to see you're still sexist and racist. As the feminists say, stop projecting. Once again, you completely failed to address my arguments! For the umpteenth time! I will take this as a victory, because you have NOTHING to refute me! For certain you have no counter evidence! And lacking a refutation that isn't a weasel squealing, naturally the win falls to someone who actually used EVIDENCE and LOGIC to prove claims rather than lamenting over fee-fees. You have nothing to say because there is literally nothing that can disprove basic stats and historical facts. CaptainCaptain (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You forgot #NotYourShield.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Also dumping this in response to your name dropping Pizzey again. But just make a Nazi propaganda reference like you've done before. Blah blah internalized misogyny etc.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I've said multiple times before that I am not a man, it's not my problem that your ability to read occasionally fails (when it suits you). Additionally, citing WHTM as a source proving that Erin Pizzey sucks is like the Soviets sourcing the Kremlin as to why capitalism is the devil. Once again, for the nth time in forever, you glossed over points. Your first bit of evidence in ages is from fucking WHTM whining about how Pizzey said that extending domestic violence to cover alleged emotional control was a bad idea, even though I would never extend that thing to MEN or women. WHTM literally glosses over her entire quote regarding the decision which is full of logic, oh but I forgot, logic is poison to feminists. Getting beaten by your partner is far different from your partner stopping you doing something that you could easily do if you just left them. "I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul." CaptainCaptain (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

If it's on that forum page I honestly hadn't read it. Erin Pizzey is an anti-feminist according to feminists so take what you will. Just stop being so boring and predictable with your anti-feminist talking points. Lorde help us all.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

And nor does that post contain anything that has refuted my arguments here. I didn't say that Erin Pizzey wasn't anti-feminist, I couldn't give less of a shit. The WHTM post was taking offense at what she said despite it being perfectly reasonable. This total lack of refutation is a source of endless amusement. CaptainCaptain (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The multiple WHTM posts are not taking offense but rather pointing out how batshit insane she is. But I should really stop responding to you. I'm only going to keep this page watched to make sure you don't insert your feMRA garbage onto the main page, but that doesn't really seem to be your goal.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Disagreeing and arguing from logic=insane. Where's your reasoning? That article flipping bled an entitled air of being offended. And once again, no refutations! You can whine and call me 'feMRA' all you want but unfortunately, it doesn't disprove what I say and it doesn't count as evidence for anything. Your lamentations of wanting to shut up show that you know that your stance is weak, that I've destroyed every single weak support you built it on and now you want to make your jump look good and my attacks look bad. But sadly for you, it won't work. Congratulations on your resounding loss. CaptainCaptain (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I just don't have the resources at my fingertips like you do to possibly debunk the ravings of an insane feMRA like yourself because I don't spend all my time on the Internet tilting at whatever the diametric opposite of Valerie Solanas shaped windmills would be.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

No, you just have an endless amount of time to write these air-headed posts that say nothing and can be annihilated with two scraps of a candle and a quick fart. Insane? Once again, disagreement with feminism = insane? Glad you've provided so much evidence for your claim there. Your attacks are growing more and more personal, arguing less and less from reason or facts. Granted, they never were very good in the first place. Careful, your anger is showing. CaptainCaptain (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You're an insane reactionary blinded by internalized misogyny. Check those off on your SocJus bingo card.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hehehehehe, internalized misogyny? Good one. Hey, not my fault you people have a lexicon you like to use. And yet another post where you have said pretty much nothing and, once again, haven't refuted my arguments. Additionally, you see how my previous post pointed out that you are becoming personal, that you are becoming irrational? Yeah, you haven't really changed that sentiment in your latest post, have you? CaptainCaptain (talk) 03:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You're complaining about feminism not doing enough about divorce rates? Well it's mostly because feminists hold very little legislative power and there's evidence that this is neither feminism's fault nor are feminists complacent about it. Withoutaname (talk) 03:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't really care, CaptainCaptain. You're completely oblivious to the fact that society as a whole favors men more than women but you and every other MRA can cherrypick instances where men have gotten the short end of the stick in really minor areas that are already covered indepth on this particular accompanying article. It's just "men have it so hard" over and over again, referencing studies from the usual approved list of fellow anti-feminist authors (ex. Pizzey, Sommers, Silverman, Stephens, Sacks) or social scientists who hate the fact that their studies are now being used as trumpcards against feminism (eg. Straus). And thankfully, because I really have nothing better to do than argue with you over this shit, your studies on how women batter their male partners more often than the other way around have been presented by you as factually disingenuous. So there you go with that one. You can peruse the rest of their blog too.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I've said throughout this thread that feminism is not responsible for the current divorce situation and rates. Epic strawman. Seeing as women make up the majority of voters: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/17/voter-turnout-infographic-women_n_1797639.html the congress can't really be biased against them, because THEY VOTED THE MEN INTO CONGRESS. Glad you know so much about elections. Also, don't give me the bullshit that 'feminism doesn't have enough power to do that!' Utter shite. Feminism has a huge degree of influence, in areas from sex to working rights to schooling to reproductive rights. Feminism could easily change how divorces are handled right now, but isn't part of their plan. The two sites you linked are minority sites who are obviously not affecting the ubermachine much, seeing as I have already stated that feminism could easily change it if it wanted, if only by dint of social pressure.

In response to second post, give me evidence of areas where women are truly disadvantaged in Western society. I'm not talking about your fucking fee-fees, I'm talking about missing rights or police bias. The only police/court biases I see are in fucking favor of women. I've cited sources that aren't from your Demon Gods but even the ones that are are logical and thought out with academic backing and rigorous studying. You have WHTM. And look! You are WRITING OFF MALE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS! 'Yeah, fuck them' you say. Here's a source from the flipping Guardian that disproves your claims http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence And because you clearly did not read it, http://www.domesticviolenceresearch.org/pages/12_page_findings.htm (Keep in mind this comes from academic sources) I have tons of sources that easily sideswipe your one biased source. CaptainCaptain (talk) 03:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Your congress argument is weak as fuck. Just because women vote more doesn't mean there's more women politicians to vote into congressional or senate seats. And feminism isn't some monolithic entity that can enact these changes like you're insisting is capable of making these changes. Simply because feminists have made changes for women in certain areas doesn't mean that they're all powerful and can eliminate all aspects of how women have been marginalized by western society for over a century. And I'd give you places where women still lack equality but you'd find some biased as shit source to refute it. Like the wage gap or such. And we're not writing off male domestic violence victims. We're pointing out that your study insisting that they're more prevalent is flawed. Here's a similar look at another study.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

But Congress is biased against them, because there's not a whole lot of women politicians to choose from, and that's because there's not a whole lot of women going into politics. Can you guess why that is? Also "feminism has a huge degree of influence"? You just agreed that a lot of nonfeminists got voted into Congress. Which is it? "if only by dint of social pressure"? That doesn't sound like a huge degree of influence, compared to something like the Koch Brothers.

It's funny that you somehow conveniently ignore the other 60% in the Guardian paper. Wonder who they could possibly be? Also, I'm not sure what your second citation is supposed to say:

• Lifetime rates higher among women than men
• Wide range in perpetration rates: 1.0% to 61.6% for males; 2.4% to 68.9% for women
• Across studies, 40% of women and 32% of men reported expressive abuse; 41% of women and 43% of men reported coercive abuse
• According to national samples, 0.2% of men and 4.5% of women have been forced to have sexual intercourse by a partner
• 4.1% to 8% of women and 0.5% to 2% of men report at least one incident of stalking during their lifetime

You're also discounting non-partner violence. Withoutaname (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh my god not the fucking wage gap again. It's BULLSHIT. Nearly all countries have equal pay laws so if someone's getting paid unfairly they can take the employer to court. The wage gap is just average earnings. If you want, go ahead and force women into higher-paying jobs by making them learn different areas so you can buff up the average but that solution seems rather draconian. Also I can guarantee nearly every state probably has a female candidate for both sides vying for the position, so don't complain about that nonsense. I haven't said that men are more often victims, but my studies show parts in which they are sometimes more victims, sometimes less, overall they make up less by a few percent but not exactly negligible. Also it's pretty fucking obvious feminism does not care about divorce court proceedings or domestic violence against men because it is almost never brought up in mainstream feminist areas and definitely never gets to the real world much at all. Additionally, how do you prove women have been 'disadvantaged' when men were obligated to sacrifice themselves for the state if they ordered it and their lives were practically worthless?

Second post, you've cited things from the source like it disproves things even though it's discussing various sources. As I just said, there are some areas where men are more victimized, and sometimes less. I don't have stats on non-partner violence ATM. Also, if you had read the rest about the piece about stalkers, it also showed that the stats were only true for physical stalking, which only makes up a minority of actual stalking. The fact that the Guardian cites such a high percentage shows that there is a noticeable problem. Because even if it's only 40% then that should still mean that forty percent of arrested people on DV charges will be women, even though that isn't the case. CaptainCaptain (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Really, CaptainCaptain? Then why does this report say female politicians are in short supply? Withoutaname (talk) 08:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I forgot mentioning "wage gap" is MRA kryptonite. Your assertion of "equal pay laws" are really bullshit because it doesn't mean women don't get affected by other factors that lead to them making less money overall compared to men. Women don't get hired over men. Women have to take off time if they want to have children. Jobs "traditionally" held by women pay less. Women are less likely to enter career fields with high paying jobs. And so on. Sure, it's illegal if a man and a woman both hold the same position in the same company and the man's salary is automatically set higher than the woman's. But the wage gap is not measured individually but averages throughout professions and nations. And just because there are female candidates does not mean they get voted in because they have to beat out other candidates in every other stage of the election in their own political party first before even being considered for the actual vote. The links I provided show that the studies on male victims of violence are misleading. Here's a source for your divorce court stance. And oh my god are you really complaining about the draft/conscription? There hasn't been active use of conscription in the Americas or Europe for 50 years.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm one of those assholes who doesn't like it when MILLIONS OF INNOCENT MEN DIE. If you're gonna complaining about me citing conscription, you are automatically not allowed to complain about past grievances. Actually, conscription is still a thing in some Western nations or at least the skeleton i.e. Selective Service. Oooh, clever feminist! You've realized you can't defend the traditional '77 cents to dollar' shit so now your wage gap is a more nebulous, sophisticated thing. Firstly, this source proves that in STEM (a place with huge salaries) women are preferred two to one to men: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract Hiring bias indeed. Men often take time off when they have kids too, but remember, BIOLOGY states that a woman will have to be present for the child's birth and often during its pre-weening stages. You will find the most powerful people in the world do not have children because they are distractions and lessen their chances to get promoted and rise to the top. You can't have a family and simultaneously lend your entire self to ascending the ranks. Unless you propose more neglect of children in favor of more corporate leaders? Finally, 'women are less likely to enter higher-paying career fields' Who the fuck cares? That is COMPLETELY their choice! They KNOW that there is high pay there, if they decide not to take it, it is entirely up to them! Some people want lots of money, some don't! Do you propose a more money-oriented world so we can all be come greedy corporate fucks? Gee, sounds fantastic! CaptainCaptain (talk) 05:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"BIOLOGY states" Biology doesn't fucking state anything CaptainCaptain. That's pseudoscientific bullshit and you know that. "Biology" and a lot of the sciences are "is", not "ought". The realm of morality is outside the purview of science, otherwise we'd spend all day judging homosexuality by its ability to advance the species. Withoutaname (talk) 08:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's the first fucking link for a simple search for "feminism and the draft" and why overturning it has been ineffectual. It's very easy to avail yourself of this ignorance. Withoutaname (talk) 08:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Millions of innocent men from industrialized nations haven't died since the Vietnam War. The selective service doesn't really count for shit when there's volunteer militaries. That STEM paper comes from last year and science doesn't pay shit in wages tbh. The most powerful people in the world are predominantly men. And it's not women's choice not to go into fields because society has told them that it's not their place and feminism is the only fucking thing that says otherwise. Everyone wants lots of money but not everyone has the fucking ability to become CEO of some multimillion dollar company and rake that dough in.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Conscription hasn't been used because there hasn't been a big enough war and volunteer militaries have always existed. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. Also, STEM includes Science, Tech, Engineering and Mathematics. Science can quite easily pay well. Tech usually. Engineering pretty much always. Mathematics not so much, but you will be highly regarded in the STEM fields. You really think the promises of cash and prestige don't tempt people? You really think someone saying 'STEM is for boys' (even though I've never heard someone say that so stop peddling bullshit) is going to stop women chasing money and prestige? There is tons of pro-women in STEM pushes! I have a female friend in STEM and she's never complained of 'sexism' in her uni or her work. Come off it. People are self-centered and they will do what makes them feel good. CaptainCaptain (talk) 05:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

So conscription is no longer an issue. And I bet if I said something along the lines of "the surge in women entering STEM fields is a recent thing" or "once careers become feminized they become less desirable" you might lose your mind. Like how teachers are paid shit because most are women. Or how the field of biology is now dominated by women and its seen as less desirable. Or how men get mocked for entering nursing. Or how computer programming used to traditionally be a woman's profession until men began taking it up and now it's a highly desired field but women have problems fitting in because of the way men have taken it over culturally. All of these really come back to how society is shit for women or feminine traits.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

What? Where is your evidence for these insane claims? Teachers are paid shit because most are female? Are you saying when most teachers were men they lived in up? Smoked opium in the flashest whorehouses all day? Biology is seen as less desirable? Guess that explains why a third of males in my high school took bio which is an unforgivingly wordy subject. I will concede that men are sometimes ridiculed for being nurses. However, I know several people who get blood drawn or get other lesser tests taken and they prefer male nurses, even the females. Also, I've never ever seen feminists lift a finger for male nurses. And finally, women used to make up the majority of computer programmers? Where the fuck is your evidence for this? Maybe during WWII, where most men were gone or dead, but ever since the field has been mostly male, not recently. Also, if the 'culture' of a high pay job stops you, you're not exactly chasing it very hard. Professional mercenaries earn six figure salaries, you think the ones in the job have qualms with the 'culture' of merc work? CaptainCaptain (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ God I know my life is sad but I can't imagine yours considering you do this like daily. Just going onto comment sections on pages critical of the MRM and doing this? And for a month? Damn girl.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I live for argument, which is strange but this really doesn't take up much time at all. Also you didn't provide the evidence I asked for. CaptainCaptain (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this really what you do for fun? Lorde. Don't you have friends? Family? Someone else to talk at than SJWs?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not a very clever way to sidestep evidence requests. Do you have any evidence to prove the claims that I argued against or are you just going to continue on this tangent? Also why do you keep saying Lorde? I know the singer, from my country even, but why? CaptainCaptain (talk) 08:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Because I can.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

And neither does that post contain evidence. Are you going to provide what I asked for at all? Because as it stands you don't have a foot to stand on.

Additionally in response to WithoutAName because his posts didn't show before, are you saying women no longer have to give birth now? Are you saying that if a woman wants a child she can simply will it and POP there's a newborn in her arms? Better yet, POP and there's a teen so it doesn't have to be looked after as much, so the family can continue neglecting its children as the adults pursue a vicious corporate career that drives the world to the edge and off it? Gee, that sounds realistic and grand. CaptainCaptain (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Who said I was trying to anymore? You really should pay attention.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

So, why do you people hate these guys again?

Cause I don't get it. WittyUsername (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Because it is a hate group focused on hating women thinly disguised as a civil rights movement that hasn't accomplished anything to advance actual issues uniquely faced by men unlike strides made by feminism. Stop JAQing off everywhere. You'll leave stains.—Ryulong (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Explain further. So far it just sounds like propaganda. WittyUsername (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing more to explain. The MRM (in its current incarnation) hasn't accomplished anything other than treatening feminists on the Internet. Read the fucking article.—Ryulong (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Then the article's probably biased against them. I could try and look for things they've done. WittyUsername (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Just because it's biased doesn't mean it's wrong.—Ryulong (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It might be wrong, though. WittyUsername (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Braver gentlesirs than you have tried proving that. None of them have succeeded. Where might you go that other staunch MRM defenders haven't? - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 22:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I will travel across the land, searching far and wide. WittyUsername (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The MRM have already found all of the pokemon though, but none of them have proven to legitimize their movement. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 22:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

But I understand the power that's inside. WittyUsername (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

What the non-literal fuck am I reading? WalkerWalkerWalker 23:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Non-literal fucks are the worst kind. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 23:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Even the rest of the manosphere doesn't like the MRM because it puts too much emphasis on male victimhood rather than on male self-help. Also, the MRM makes the same mistake that the feminist movement does, in that they both say, "The opposite sex has rights that we don't have; therefore, we should take away their rights in order to put both sexes on equal footing". What they should have done was advocate achieving equality by giving their own sex more rights. The MRM has also tended to focus on unimportant issues and neglected a lot of issues that should have been a higher priority. Landmartian (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

How is an article written by one author on Return of Kings 'the rest of the manosphere'? Do you know how 'groups' work? Also, they focus on 'unimportant issues'? Seeing as most of them talk about male suicide, male suicide must be an 'unimportant issue' then. Perhaps they should talk about the portrayal of males in video games? CaptainCaptain (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You talk about male suicide like it's a bad thing. More men than women are going to fail at life because more men than women will deviate from the norm, whether in a good way (e.g. by becoming geniuses) or in a bad way (by becoming criminals and mental patients). It's just the way that they're made. Suicide is one way in which those who fail can cut their losses. Landmartian (talk) 00:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

200px

ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Jaysus...'you talk about male suicide like it's a bad thing'...Seeing as they commit it at usually 2 to 3 times the rate that women do, and they commit it most between ages 18 and 30, your comment is as asinine as it is revolting. Am I to assume you would cry if the situation was reversed? Would you say the same things if women committed it predominantly? CaptainCaptain (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Fun fact: both genders attempt suicide at roughly the same rate, but men use bridges and guns while women use knives and pills. It's not so easy to change your mind mid-bullet as it is mid-bleed. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

(ec) If women were the ones killing themselves in greater numbers, that would be disturbing and indicative of a major problem. Men killing themselves between 18 and 30 makes a lot of sense. By that age, they've been around long enough to confirm that life is pointless, without needing to suffering through the remaining two-thirds of their existence. About the method: I wonder what effect it had on women's suicide success rates when Nembutal was readily available to any housewife who complained to her doctor about insomnia or jitters? Landmartian (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Uh, why would a heightened level of female suicides be an issue if the current rate of male suicide isn't? CaptainCaptain (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Male suicide is an issue, but this article isn't about "Societal issues that uniquely affect men", it's about Men's Rights groups. The useful question is, how do Men's Rights groups deal with the issue?191.190.225.192 (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

It is very hard for a movement to work towards a goal with next to no mainstream support. There are no benefits for preventing male suicide, and there are extremely little support or funding to help male victims of rape or domestic abuse all across the western world. There was recently the incident with Jess Philips, who laughed at the concept of International Men's Day, and even defended her actions after the presentation, that mentioned very important things such as support for male victims of abuse, and suicide. It would help to get some mainstream support, as support from the feminist movement, that unfortunately is a little dismissive of these very important issues. I have talked to a few feminists that work towards fixing these issues, and I respect them greatly, but the sad fact is that many feminists aren't interestes in combating these problems. I would be very happy to see the feminist movement to spotlight these life and death issues over more trivial issues such as "everyday sexism". EuroBurro (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

For male suicide to be effectively addressed, the dysfunctional gender relations that are helping cause male suicide (e.g. of guys like Elliot Rodger) would also need to be addressed. This includes effectively bringing about male self-improvement. Feminists are not interested in that, and they're probably even poorly-equipped to accomplish it. Women are not going to be able to teach men how to be men; men have to teach one another that. Women make a token effort at neutralizing the threat that incels pose to society by, say, becoming mental health workers who push a lot of medication and counseling at troubled men, but this doesn't solve the problem for the vast majority of men who need a sense of power, success, and accomplishment as well as love, companionship, and sex in order to feel happy. Their psychological problems are situational and have to be resolved through concrete action guided by principles that have been proven to work. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It is a really sad state of affairs that these issues aren't taken seriously by a large part of the mainstream. To me it has a lot to do with the neckbeard misogynist stereotype that instantly put some people off about fighting for the rights of men. I agree that a woman cannot really relate to the experience of being a man to the extent needed, such is also the case with the genders reversed. Another issue that has arisen due to the lack of media support for men's rights is the belief that these issues don't exist, or are not important. It is a very dangerous to believe that anyone, male or female, have the rights or, conversely, no rights at all. I identify as an MRA, as well as a feminist, and to me, those two should be able to work together to bring about equality for all people. EuroBurro (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I like how the feminists doesn't see the high male suicide rate as an issue, you are a stereotype of yourself. In Saudi Arabia women have a hard time living and guess what?! the suicide rate there among women is huge. So if you could drop you misandry mind shields and see the problem for what it is I'll be gratful , thanks.

Also, " because it puts too much emphasis on male victimhood rather than on male self-help." Are you shitting me? What are trigger warnings? what is a safe place? these are all symptoms of SJWs attempt at victimhood, treating themselves as fragile victims instead of powerfull empowered beings. Instead of rallying in the streets and being part of debates they argue over the internet and shutting down debates because they are not PC enough for them to hear. This is really out of hand. I really thought RationalWiki was a place of intellegence. I myself have participated in protests and rallys created by feminists. But the avrage feminist is sexist, just as much as the avrage MRA. Also, here is just a very abstract and simple question that really doesn't have any way of going around it. How does an Ideology that is supposed to be for gender equality be named after only one gender?^{— Unsigned, by: 212.150.252.184 / talk / contribs}

Reddit thread

Might to to adjust our article accordingly. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 01:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It's almost like this article was written with a huge and unfounded slant. Who woulda thunk it? CaptainCaptain (talk) 03:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Reddit thread redux

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3ydwqv/rationalwiki_on_the_mrm_whats_so_great_about/ FuzzyCatPotato of the Offensive Classified ads (talk/stalk) 22:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

It's almost like you were wrong, that your article was built to force an agenda rather than, you know, tell objective truths. ^{— Unsigned, by: CaptainCaptain / talk / contribs}

Feel free to share your august wisdom and tell us why. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

You're the one who posted the earlier link, you tell me. CaptainCaptain (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Tone change

We should recast this article's tone as "good idea, bad execution", given that the *idea* of men's rights activism is for gender equality, but the execution comes much closer to hating on feminism and women. No? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 15:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd say not. That's not really what's going on; it's more jackasses trying to clothe themselves in the mantle of something worthwhile. It's not as if most people in the MRM started off by wanting to do something about the genuine problems men face and got pulled down a blind alley of misogyny by accident. They started from a place of misogyny, and only try to co-opt genuine problems as a feeble means of deflecting criticism. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The main problem with the MRM is that it focuses (1) on the wrong issues and (2) on political change rather than making a difference through one's own personal choices. They'll point out an instance of female hypocrisy, such as women's demanding acceptance of their chubbiness while discriminating against short men, and demand that women stop being hypocritical. Yet women are not going to change their preference for taller men. Red Pillers would simply say, find ways to compensate for a lack of height, if you're short. Learn to attract slimmer women and then the chubby ones will be less relevant to your life. Plus as more men learn game, those chubby girls will have to lose weight if they want to snag a man. Men who have gained confidence and attractiveness are going to be more successful in the political arena anyway. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I must agree with Queex on this. It's definitely otherwise detestable people trying to cloak themselves in respectability. I've never seen any attempt at actually promoting gender equality done by an MRA. They've even poo-pooed existing men's abuse shelters as "irrelevant" and "unnecessary". (Paul Elam making the quoted descriptors there.) --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

+1 to Queex and Castaigne. Pretty sure this has been covered at length in the extensive and querulous archives for this page, though I don't really want to dredge through them either - David Gerard (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

MRAs are a Hivemind

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?--180.216.68.197 (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, because your thought A (That MRAs tend to flame feminist sites) does not logically lead to your claim B (that each man is guilty) or your claim C (that MRA represent all men). In fairness, claim B and claim C could still be true, but you have not in any way established a logical argument as to why anyone would be claiming that. Besides you, I mean. Do you think each and every man is guilty of oppressing women?KrytenKoro (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is what political correctness has been reduced to, if your part of a collective then your, at least by default responsible for the oppression of another collective.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

That is a very strange idea for you to have, and seems to remove agency and individuality from individuals. I don't agree with it, and I'm not personally aware of anyone but you who does. Are you claiming it is an argument you disagree with? If so, who is making it?KrytenKoro (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

If you ask the PC police if there is such thing as misandry or anglophobia, they will deny it and say sexism only applies to women and all men are sexist and racism only applies to the majority and all of the majority are racist.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I've seen tumblr feminists claiming that all men are, by nature of having privilege, oppressors (see responses to Wil Wheaton's blog), but I've not seen evidence that these opinions are actually held by serious thinkers who deserve consideration, only random internet navelgazers. I've not seen claims that all men are by definition sexist, only that all men benefit to some extent from sexism, even if the individual man may have other "isms" from which he suffers. I've seen claims that only prejudice with institutionalized power behind it can truly be considered an "ism", which is not equivalent to claiming that the majority can never suffer an instance of prejudice. You seem to be claiming something much stronger than I've seen, and you have yet to point out who is making these outrageous claims besides yourself.KrytenKoro (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You might want to look at the isms from the perspective of feminist composed solely of racial minorities, they confirm what I believe about feminism.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 09:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

You might want to actually specify whose claims you're talking about, rather than making shit up out of whole cloth and pretending that the claims belong to anyone beyond yourself. Three times I've asked you to provide an actual face for your claims.KrytenKoro (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)