Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive5

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

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

HuffPo article addressing MRA

In case anyone is interested - HuffPo. VOX^HUMANA 20:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Changes

WaitingforGodot's changes bring up a few concerns. One question is simple: are all MRAs men? Godot also writes that MRAs largely don't self-identify as such and that they are distinguished from "rational" men who argue MRA points by the fact that they're "hateful". To the first, it seems that yes, a substantial number of MRAs do identify as either "masculists" or people who support "The Men's Rights Movement", judging from /r/mensrights, among others. Blue (is useful) 08:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's bollocks, with a grain of truth - "MRA" has become a generic term of abuse for "anti-feminist" on some sites. The rest is... disappointing. Yes, there is such thing as FeMRA ("female MRA"). And the problem with the listed issues is how they are used - depending on who you read, they are either blamed on "feminism" and/or used to shut up discussion of any women-related issues ("Shut up - men have it worse!"), and the proposed solutions are something like "roll the law and/or culture back to the 1950s/1850s/the middle ages/if not earlier".

There may be a "high-volume asshole" effect at work, affecting the movement's online image - I've read claims that the offline side of the movement is saner.

And there are people who work seriously on those men-related problems, but they generally don't identify as MRM/MRA.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

MRA is a term invented by MRAs & there are many who identify as such. There are others who don't but whose views & arguments on gender issues so closely resemble MRA ones that the MRA label is often applied to them (TheAmazingAtheist, for example). There are plenty of assholes in both the online & offline movements, which really tends the tar the movement as a whole & gets in the way of any legitimate grievances they might sometimes raise. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The biggest issue is that there are two different things happening at once. There are men who are legitimately discussing legal and social issues that relate to men, especially in family law. These people are *not* generally "MRA", though they are generally "men's rights movement". Then there are the men who using such language, reinforce their idiotic positions on women, women's roles, and bitches who have done them wrong. These are what are labled "MRA" in the blogisphere. Most "men's rights" sites around the interent tend to be MRA types. Most legal groups in the real world are exactly the first version. logical rational men holding the position that things in society - especially where family law and children are concerned - are screwed up. They do not say "because of women", they do not deny that social roles of men and women played and play important factors in it. The trouble is, people around the internet toss words around without thinking of the larger picture. I tried to outline the two different worlds - that MRA is a snaral word, and then describe the MRA type, but was reverted cause "it's a real thing'. You have to get over the idea that anything is or is not "real", and focus on what is or is not really being done with terms, or no one is helped when they try to read up on this stuff. "MRA" as it is used, correctly or not, means the jackass men who blast women. "Men's rights" are very real. The last time we tried to split the baby we again got told "no, there is a real thing MRA". Fighting for what *should be* how something is used, doesn't tell us how it *is* being used.Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 18:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

"MRA" is used as a self-descriptor, though. That's like saying "atheism" or "atheists" don't exist because some idjits use it as a pejorative. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

So we tried a few months ago to address that, and it was all reverted under "you can't say all these things at once". I don't know how to approach this, simply because when we try, no one ever agrees what we are saying. We had a section on the more "legitimate" movement, and a section on the more idiotic idiots... and it was, i guess, too wordy? I don't know. Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 18:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem is this insistence that there are two distinct entities (a men's rights movement with legitimate grievances, and MRAs with a misogynistic attitude to women). In reality I think the distinction is a lot more blurred & there's really a spectrum of attitudes within the movement (as in any large grassroots movements). If you look at groups that campaign on men's rights issues like equality in custody hearings (e.g. Fathers for Justice), you'll find examples of misogynist assholes in among the honest guys with a fair point to make. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

And we're back to teh same problem. I've never insisted there are two different groups. I've maintained that the WORD is used in two distinct ways. But at this point, maybe we need to scratch the whole article and start over. trying to make it conform to something none of us even agree on, is the issue, i think. When you read anything in defense of Anita S, you'll see "MRA" tossed about with no regard for what it may have meant. we need to define that, cause that is how most people will come to the term. And, if there are people who are saying "I'm an MRA" we need to define that, as well. but again, context is everything. and i'm not convinced this article will get us there. a fresh start might be far better.Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 18:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

A suggestion

perhaps what we need is an article on or a section on "MRA" as a term, as it's used mostly by feminists to blast jackass men. In that section say something like: "MRA" as a term was originally used by proponents of the Men's movement. However, the term caught on in the blogisphere, as a way to identify mysognist men." somesuch.... i don't know... trying to figure out how this all works as an article.Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 18:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

We could, you know, just write a better article where we talk about the many facets of how the term MRA is used. And this article is about the "men's rights movement," not MRAs specifically, so this would be a good place to do it. Blue (pester) 18:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

^This. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Well shit, isn't that EXACTLY what i suggested. but no, i'm the feminst war monger who is just writing crap.Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 19:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on trying to separate the good MRAs and the bad. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 19:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

 

Nope, you just may have problems expressing yourself clearly.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Revising page

by teh by, i'm working on radical overhaul of the page, to highlight the history, the "pro feminist" camps, and the "anti-feminsit camps" and how they've come into the internet. I'll also write about MRA as a perjorative for any misogynist whining about "us poor men" on a page about women's issues, etc. Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 20:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

On reddit's r/MensRights

This has been linked on r/MensRights, with somewhat predictable results.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Joy. Ty^JFBANBSRADA 14:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Delicious misogynist tears.±KnightOfTL;DR^{lavishly loquacious} 14:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

And [1][2] for that post, and another one [3][4] - in [5] he recommends the MRAs go to LessWrong instead - David Gerard (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

That post is an elaborate indictment of us because... we don't follow Wikipedia's manual of style? God I wrote that blog post for a reason - the idea that we're trying to supplement or supplant Wikipedia is disturbingly common. We really ought to think about getting ourselves some Vector customizations. Blue (is useful) 09:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

That would be cool. Ty^{Carnival time.} 13:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It's more like "they say something good about PZ Myers - quick, quick, let me find a cudgel to beat them with". Wikipedia's style guidelines were just a handy instrument. PZM's article is far from our best, though, and as far as I can remember, it was heavily Proximated, so if someone cares, it can do with some copy-editing and expanding.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll give it a look after I get off from work. Ty^{Carnival time.} 13:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I tried sprucing up a section, though I'm not sure if it's quite good enough yet. I'd appreciate some backup.±KnightOfTL;DR^{garrulous en guerre} 20:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

So many ignorant bigots! Must not troll! ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 15:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Can someone feed them this? - David Gerard (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that. I think that board is a friggen gold mine BTW on MRA ignorance and sexism. I suspect a lot of the "women" there are just male MRAs trying to get credibility. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 18:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

patriarchy

Denying patriarchy and claiming that it "hurts men too" I don't deny there has been patriarchy but as a male I can say that the historical narrative of patriarchy does in fact hurt me in a sense. I do not want a patriarchal society and those that do make me look bad. Aceⁱ⁹ 19:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hence I don't think this edit is particularly fair. Aceⁱ⁹ 19:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

To expand on what my prof. said. She said that Patriarchies has no problems keep the "wrong kinda men" down any more then woman to help keep their power. --Revolverman (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - it is more than an all boys club. It extends to a rich, white boys club. I think the edit should be reviewed. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you deny patriachy? or do you say it ALSO hurts men. Those are two very different things. read the intro, or understand the context, but in the 70's MRA groups all stated that patriarchy was bad for women and men. It's only more recently they attempt to DENY IT, and reframe the argument.Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 20:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Also that little dance you just did, "but we have it bad, sometimes, too", is part of this whole game when dealing with equality. Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 20:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You will have a very hard time showing how men in general have been harmed by the patriarchy. to they have to work hard? yes. do they work the coal mines and die? yes. Are the the ones who own property? chose their mates, own their children? demand sex in marriage? yes. society that demands we pay the rich is bad for everyone. but denying that within that, men get it better than women is just silly denialism.Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 20:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Denying historical or modern patriarchy is stupid. Saying that all men would be treated equal under patriarchy is stupid also. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course not Godot. I'm just say its not as black and white as "Men oppress Woman" in the historical context. --Revolverman (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

No one is saying it is. We are talking about arguments mad by men's rights activist. and there is a tradition of DENING that 'patriarchy" exists, and that some other force is at work harming men and women EQUALLY. and, if you finish reading, that proof it (patriarchy) doesn't exist is that women created the roles they live by. cause yes, slaves often create the rules and roles they live under. Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 20:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I think I see where you're coming from now. Blame me for not getting MRA arguments and their couched meanings. --Revolverman (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

(EC) There isn't a lot of clarity in this discussion. Of course patriarchy harms men. This doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, as MRAs will claim. The systems that prop up patriarchy limit how men can comport themselves in the same way they limit how women do. This doesn't mean patriarchal society is not male-dominated and to the benefit of most men. Blue (is useful) 20:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

(EC) I've rephrased it slightly from "it hurts men too" to "it hurts men just as much as women". I think most people would agree that there are at least some cases where men may be disadvantaged or inconvenienced by some aspect of patriarchy. But a common meme among MRAs is that gender roles restrict men just as much as women, & therefore there isn't really a patriarchy. This is of course ridiculous. See talk:patriarchy for a recent example. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The edit - as it was - was a blanket statement as if to suggest it doesn't and wouldn't when historically patriarchal societies have been extremely stratified in other regions such as race and religion. A patriarchal society is bad for everyone except the few on the top of the heap. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you also tend to see "patriarchy" in the terms of large scale models. modern society, or greek culture, or the ancient egyptians. Patriarchy at it's most devastating might well have been 100,000s of years ago in it's tribal form. we have no idea what those looked like, but there is significant evidence that even back then, power rested in the hands of men. certainly, by 7,000 years ago, when nomadic tribes are leaving pieces of themselves (or we can extrapolate by various so-called pre contact tribal people) men ran the family. This is not "men run the country", this is not "men make everyone pay taxes" this is man runs his family. And maybe a group of men run the small tribes of families, and then a selected group of men run the bands of tribes. And while there are notable exceptions, we know that most evidence leads to male controlled families across time and place. And in those cases, all men are born more or less equal. all women are born less equal. Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 20:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

We see it on large scale models because how a family orientates itself isn't something we can tinker with on the minute. We can is orientate our society to be equal but people are still going to live with their own prejudices. Society can only provide the example to be followed. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Some of the arguments above seem to be conflating patriarchy with class privilege. A wealthy, upper class woman in the 19th century probably had more opportunity in life than an East London male laborer. However patriarchy still reigned supreme - the privileged female had much fewer opportunities or social freedom than the equally privileged male, and the working class female had it seriously bad.

To be convinced that "patriarchy" hurts men, I'd need to understand what specific consequences of patriarchy are in play, and be convinced they were fully stripped out from the bad effects of socioeconomic status. VOX^HUMANA 20:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Patriarchy =/= all men are equal. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Obviously. However I'm trying to understand when or how men have been oppressed by patriarchy (and not some other aspect such as socioeconomic status, religion, etc). VOX^HUMANA 21:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Homosexual men were oppressed by patriarchy. They were not really considered men. Treated as 'girly boys' and the like. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, fair comment. VOX^HUMANA 22:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It's more than just homosexual men; There are subordinate masculinites and supressed masculinities... though one uniting factor in those identities is that they are all a 'failure' to reach the ideal of a hegemonic masculinity... and because of the heterosexism of society, if a male does not manage to (or can't by default!) claim a bit of this hegemonic masculinity for himself, he's less masculine and relegated as more 'feminine.' Which in our society is considered bad. So basically there are subordinate masculinities, and they are stomped on by patriarchy with the same foot that stomps on women. TL;DR- in a heterosexist society, not!masculine = feminine = less valuable or undesirable. You can see this barring from hegemonic masculinity most clearly in populations of men of color (intersection of racism and gender), and in gay men (intersection of sexuality and gender), and in working-class men (intersection of class and gender.) All men are 'valued over' women in society in some ways, but the amount of benefits men can reap over other men (rather than women) vary wildly. It's complex. A black, working-class man might be treated by society with more disdain than a middle-class white woman... but at the end of the day, that woman's rapist will likely never be caught. In fact, she's more likely to be assaulted physically or sexually when male masculinity is continually measured against a hegemonic impossible goal. People with privilage who are denied all of the benifits of that privilage will turn to the people 'under' them to take it out on... and this is well documented.( “All Men Are Not Created Equal: Asian Men in U.S. History” by Yen Le Espiritu, Men's Lives 7th edition, also (In)Secure Timesconstructing white working-class masculinities in the late 20th century, by Michelle Fine, Lois Weis, Judi Addelston and Julia Marusz.) ±KnightOfTL;DR^{going galt: the literal crazy train} 21:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

There are subordinate masculinites and supressed masculinities... though one uniting factor in those identities is that they are all a 'failure' to reach the ideal of a hegemonic masculinity Exactly. A patriarchal society also affirms the "ideal" of what a men should be and men who fail to attain that are treated as inferior. We see this in our society today. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

As we all know, feminists have never argued that patriarchy hurts men too. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

"the privileged female had much fewer opportunities or social freedom than the equally privileged male"

Amazing --Henk (talk) 04:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Meaning equally 'socioeconomically' privileged. I had foolishly presumed people here were literate enough to deduce that from the context supplied in the previous sentence. VOX^HUMANA 06:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

A book I found on Google Books

Acording to Uneasy Males: The American Men's Movement 1970-2000 (go to page 70), the reality of the movement - especially how it started and who it hanged with at the time - is rather different than the pseudofunny crap we have here. Faunas (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Without being able to look at the book (shitty Internet restriction): please note that the Men's movement is different from the Men's Rights movement, at least according to our articles.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

According to the book, the mythopoetic men's movement (the men's movement according to RW) and the men's rights movement, along with the fathers' rights and male pro-feminist movements, are all part of the men's movement. Faunas (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

According to people who don't go desperately cherrypicking, the hippie-masculism men's movement is ridiculously difficult to the internet MRA clowns - David Gerard (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

According to MRAs themselves (and from my own worthless anecdotal experience), most of them were involved with feminism prior to the men's rights movement. According to pro-feminist Michael Kimmel, the story is the same, so I wouldn't call it "desperately cherrypicking". Also, again, the "men's movement" as defined in RW is only a subset of the "men's movement" as commonly defined (see Wikipedia, for instance). Faunas (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You know, I just flatly do not believe you - David Gerard (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't doubt that they claim so - "I used to hold views opposite of my current ones, but then someone or something opened my eyes" is a common rhetorical technique. I regularly hear it from conspiracy theorists, for example. :D ("I too used to believe in NASA's bullshit, but now...") Sometimes, it's even partially right - the person had held vague conventional beliefs (in this particular case, some vague non-committed belief in "equal rights", possibly due to peer pressure) before going nuts. And there are people who do make extreme shifts in their positions, such as from extreme Commie-loving to extreme free-market fundamentalism. In all cases, it's still not a proof of anything.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's not quite how you think it is. If you and David Gerard bother reading the book, you'll see how the men's rights and fathers' rights movement, as already established movements (of sorts), they cooperated with the feminist movement (among other movements), and that the current anti-feminist element in the MRM is, in large part, the fault of the feminist movement, more exactly when radical feminists adopted conservative ideas of "mothers are the natural parents" and, then, this ended up influencing the feminist movement as a whole in the form of the current custody laws, for which feminists are persistent lobbyists. Faunas (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Radical feminists say that? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You didn't attribute your statement to the book, but to generic "MRAs" and your own experience. You also didn't make clear if you talk about MRA gurus (such as Paul Elam) or the rank-and-file of the movement.

And let me shed some light on Weaseloid's reaction. By "radical feminists", do you mean "followers of radical feminism", or something else?--ZooGuard (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

To Weaseloid, yes, radical feminists did say that (at least, according to the book). To ZooGuard, yes, by "radical feminists" I mean "followers of radical feminism" and it is normally the rank-and-file of the movement who says that they were once part of the feminist movement (although other-than-Paul-Elam gurus, such as Glenn Sacks, Herb Goldberg and the founders of the National Coalition for Men, do say that they were once feminists and that they stood back from feminism because of what I've told - although, in the specific case of Glenn Sacks, he still wishes for a better understanding between feminists and MRAs). And, speaking of MRA gurus that were once feminists, we do have Warren Farrell. Faunas (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Does this book use citations? or are they just called "radical feminists". And isn't that term *just* as bad as MRA in that it means one thing to, well, radical feminits, and somethign all together different to the rest of the world, especially anti women freaks like, say Rush? Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 14:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does use citations. For the relevant chapter, they are between pages 91 and 95. Also, the bibliography starts on page 289. It seems to me that the book uses the term radical feminists the way self-described radical feminists use it, since it also discusses attempts for men's rights activists to cooperate with mainstream feminists. Faunas (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Either you weren't paying attention, or the book is a crock of shit (likely a little of both). Radical feminists see assigned gender roles (including the conventional ones associated with the family unit, like "mothers are the natural parents") as intrinsically patriarchal & seek to get rid of these gender conventions. The citations on the pages you mention above look like they are virtually all cited to MRA sources; nothing I notice in there stands out as a feminist source being cited directly. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I must also add one thing to my description of the origin of anti-feminist movement in the MRM: according to the book, there was also a traditionalist, radical-feminist-style wing whose main proponents were Richard Doyle and David Amneus. Faunas (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

How can you be "traditionalist" "radical feminist". Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 19:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say "'traditionalist' 'radical feminist'", I said there was a "traditionalist, radical-feminist-style wing" (and the word "style" is very important), and what I meant is that this specific wing was/is as radical as radical feminism. Faunas (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The book does not say that "radical feminists adopted conservative ideas of "mothers are the natural parents."" Here's what the book says - "On the contrary, they - as did their radical feminist counterparts - came to view themselves as victims of a malevolent social order an in need of liberation." Here are some other people who view that - Kenservatives. Radical Leftists. Gun rights nuts. Anti-abortion radicals. War protesters. I could go on and on. Hipocrite (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

So apart from the tortured logic, the disputant didn't actually understand his supposed killer reference, and the obvious insanity of the thing he was hoping it said (rather than what it actually said) didn't register at all with him? - David Gerard (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

These people are wack!

just giving you this link for "fun", as i was looking for anything about how men's rights groups were talking about "weaker men" and role modles etc. pulled up this great quote:Gay men have invented new technology, built cities, researched cures for disease, made profound contributions to the arts, literature and philosophy, excelled at athletics and participated wholly in every aspect of the development of civilization as we know it. But of course, they did not do these things because they were gay. They did these things because they were men. Solving problems and making advances is what men do, and there is no evidence to suggest that gay men are any less proficient at it than straight men.[ "http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/the-problem-with-gay-rights/ voice for men]. Nice! I hear some chest banging out there. and women, get your butts back into the kitchen so us men, gay or straight can go build, create, and advance!"Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 22:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you start an essay? Aceⁱ⁹ 22:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

cause i really am trying to add actual cites and quotes to this article to make it better, make it represent what is actually being said both by a more traditional "men's rights with regards to legal issues where we can make real, tangible differences", and the stranger, largely internet based "anti women" MRAs. but sometimes, the quotes are so amusing, it's just got to be pointed out. :-) sorryGodot Chúc mừng năm mới 22:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It just kinda sounds like you want the article to say what you want it to say. The fact is men will and have been negatively effected by patriarchal systems (granted woman suffer the most) so if you going to mention it as an argument then it should have context. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The whole article is context. This is not about reality. It's not about how men, some, most or all, think. It's about one group of men (and those who are labeled as such, by mainstream bloggers) think. I keep bumping heads with you on this, cause you keep saying "but i don't think that way, so how can this be right". I'm not writing about you. I'm writing about "MRA". and everything in there has context and links. Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 22:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I know you are not writing about me but, like the mansplaing issue we bumped into, the broadness and wording is disconcerting to someone who doesn't think like that but would still come under it the way it had been framed. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That happens once and a while, adn we are trying to fix it, but it's not nearly as bad as you seem to think. in both cases, if you were reading the article it was made quite clear that this applies to men who THINK THEY ARE SUPERIOR to women. In the mansplainign, the very first word was "assume the woman next to you knows nothing". I know no "non-idiots" who would assume anyone does or does not know anything. they ask them "do you know X", then explain it. but you didn't accept that part. you wanted it made clear that the guy was going out of his way to be a jackass. "assuming" is doing just that. But it wasn't good enough, or obvious enough that "not all men would fit". Same here. "assuming patriarchy does not exist or redefining it", is pretty much there in MRA agendas, wither you say "and men have it bad too" or "and men have it just as bad" or whatever, is pretty much a toss in. Yes, i want it the best it can be, so i am taking your comments seriously. but i think you are extremely "not me!" here, which ... is what it is. Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 22:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It isn't not me! personally but any causal reader who might exclaim the same. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I point out that many gay men would likely find (I can't say for sure, for I am not a gay man) that quotation horrifying, because while gay men have indeed made contributions to society, they have often done it in fear for their lives and livlihoods because of their sexuality. For the very people who kick them around, murder them, silence them, make them afraid to come out, give them lifelong complexes and fears while in the closet, to heartily welcome them back into the 'man club' against their will, basically claim them like baggage, in order to basically make them stand for oppression of women while they themselves were oppressed by heterosexual men... that's MONSTROUS. "hey, I know we have tried to kick you down at every turn, but you are a man so basically we're going to use you to kick others down at every turn. Have a nice day being part of your oppressors!" Like what the FUCK. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{free guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain!} 00:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Paul Elam writes: "Gay men are and always have been resented because they provide no utility to women." Lemme see. Almost every time I've heard a homophobic insult, whether directed at me or not, it's been from a man. And the people who have been most warm and receptive upon finding out that I'm gay have been women. Elam is obviously missing the whole cultural archetype of the "fag hag", women who enjoy the company of gay men.

"They [gay men] are, in fact, the natural recipients of what many men in the men’s movement clamor for every day- freedom from the control of women and from the control of the state on women’s behalf." Oh, lovely. I'll bear that in mind next time I read about some gay kid who just had the shit kicked out of him by a bunch of teenage boys. Or was it professional feminist activists? I never can tell. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

No, they stick to attacking transsexuals - David Gerard (talk) 09:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

List of things to possibly include

• Wanting anyone making "false rape" allegations to be sent to jail – While false allegations of rape are a serious offense, and they damage the credibility of real victims, this could make victims less likely to report being raped if they have to fear that they could be arrested if the rapist isn't convicted, which they often are not.
• Anonymity for men in rape cases – Possibly valid, but only for unconvicted defendants of any crime.
• Denying patriarchy and claiming that it "hurts men too" – If you played the first Blops, the scene where Woods yells fuuuuuuuuuuuuuck! in the Russian Roulette game is about how I reacted.
• An MRA compares the rape of men to the rape of women and tried to say they're equivalent. <facepalm/>
• More victim blaming, because every time a rapist fails to be convicted, the rape was obviously made up.
• An actual quote: rapists "can rake her [their victims] over the coals" if they have the curage to speak out against what was done to them. Insert the scene of Woods yelling, that was the reaction.
• Here's a goldmine from one of the MRAs at Reddit: http://www.cotwa.info It's an entire blog dedicated to blaming victims and exonerating rapists. There are several actual cases of women admitting that the rape claim was false, but it blows false rape claims completely out of proportion as usual.

ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 18:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Filing a false police report is already against the law in most jurisdictions, so whoever wrote that can stop whining. Nailed a retread to my feet and prayed for better weather. 18:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

True. It might also be worth having some kind of protection for the victim in rape cases though. If it is obviously fabricated, than that's one thing, but it would need to be extremely obviously fabricated as in evidence that the rape did not occur, not just not having evidence that it happened. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 18:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, what you're proposing is already the case. If somebody is tried for rape (or any other crime) & found not guilty, that doesn't automatically make the accuser a liar; it often just means there is insufficient evidence or certainty to convict. If evidence emerges that the accusing party has lied or fabricated evidence (as in the case cited above), they may well end up facing criminal charges (& there should be no extra protection in place to prevent this just because it's a rape case), but it would be a pretty crap legal system if we routinely prosecuted everyone who pressed rape charges which failed to get a conviction. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Didn't the titanic issue come up on another page, too? "patriacrhy doesn't exist cause women make themselves 2nd class citizens by choice!" heh. Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 19:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

"An MRA compares the rape of men to the rape of women and tried to say they're equivalent."

Well, they are, because both are unconsensual sex, which is (for me, at least) the only real and meaningful definition of sex. You are informed by the common "wisdom" that rape is penetration with a penis or object (which is a definition that feeds into the current double standard against male and female victims of female rape) and that is always violent (which it needn't be, only non-consensual). Faunas (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

MRA communities

Are there any active MRA communities? I think it would be fun to have a discussion with these people and point out feminism and their lunacy. I'd do so in a legitimate way and do everything I can to avoid trolling. Reddit might be good. I'd like to try masculine and feminine names and see how it affects their arguments. That would be masculine and feminine versions of my own name (Sasha v. Alex). ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 16:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

There are quite a few of them. Regedit (?) has several, the http://news.mensactivism.org/, http://www.mensrightsassociation.org/joomla/ , http://www.mgtowforums.com/ men going their own way. etc.Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 16:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. And this mensrightsassociation.org/joomla/ just demonstrated the intelligence of MRAs. They're using the name of their CMS in the directory in their URL. Not only that, but their domain root doesn't have any content, meaning it would make more sense to put the content there, rather than in an arbitrary folder. Both facts suggest that they used a webhost autoinstaller which is a terrible idea because they often malfunction, don't give you nearly as many options as the program's installation interface, and seriously, animals can be trained to install web programs. Seriously. (I guess it would depending on whether they can read, which it seems that some of them can.) ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 18:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Fascinating. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC

And this mensrightsassociation.org/joomla/ just demonstrated the intelligence of MRAs.

Saying things like that makes you sound like an idiot. Stop it. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 04:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

news.mensactivism.org ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 20:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't that applies. It's not unappealing, but it's rather quite old. I'd put it on Quackwatch level. And they really need to remove that affiliation with the radio show "His Side with Glenn Sacks", since that show has been off the air for years. Faunas (talk) 10:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend r/MensRights since it is very active, just keep in mind that many of them are aware of this wiki (and this talk page). WilderG (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I just got on there. The people there are fairly amazing... They seem to think that acquitting a rapist means that the rape never happened. I think their awareness of this is a good thing, since any idiotic claims they make that are widely held will be recorded here, but it could also make them more judgmental. Actually, they're already really hostile toward any rationality. I tried pointing out to them that a lot of "false rape claims" are just going to be the rapist denying it, and punishing the victim without strong evidence of fabrication is victim blaming and sexist beyond explanation. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 06:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

So apparently I've been banned from that board. Does each subreddit have its own moderators? I'm guessing it's something like that because made sure I didn't say anything uncivil. It could have been automatic because of all the downvotes I got as the result of their rage. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 06:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

All subreddits generally have mods; one must tread carefully. Just keep in mind that they have pre-written objections to almost every argument and that their opinions are unlikely to be swayed.

They seem to think that acquitting a rapist means that the rape never happened.

They will counter saying that a claim does not mean it happened, and that the legal system should presume innocence, yet society treats such claims otherwise, or something like that.

I tried pointing out to them that a lot of "false rape claims" are just going to be the rapist denying it

They will counter that it's a false claim due to other reasons. Expect to see a link to this article. You could counter that one crazy is not representative of the population. WilderG (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Justice for Men and Boys

There's apparently a new political party in the UK called Justice for Men and Boys (and the women who love them). There doesn't seem to be much information on them at the moment and I only heard about them through this politics.co.uk article. Should they go into this article or have their own, or should we ignore them and hope they go away? rpeh •T•C•E• 11:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

List of MRA claims

Refutation of some MRA claims, might be helpful: [6], [7] Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Do they weasel the way libertarians and Christians do about what their claims actually are? I note our friend above who furiously claimed there was a radical feminist anywhere who supported his views, and of course he couldn't even understand the thing he was using as a reference. I expect a round of pigeon chess - David Gerard (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Be careful linking to my stuff... I'm officially a kook around here, so they might tar you by association. Skeptics don't like it when you show them up. And besides, most of them are still women-haters, they just hide it better (as the recent disputes over sexual harassment at TAM demonstrate) FrancoisTremblay (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone like it when you show them up? Are skeptics really more sexist than the general population, or any other group/sub-culture? ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 19:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think skeptics are more or less sexist than any other group, they're just supposed to be more "rational" about it (i.e. hide it to themselves and pretend that nothing's really happening, which seems to be their usual modus operandi about anything that's not clearly pseudo-science). FrancoisTremblay (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe skeptics are inherently less sexist or anything-ist than the general population until they apply the lens of skepticism to culture. It's super easy to kick down stuff like psychics and channelers, less easy to admit that some institutions in society are unapologetically uncritical of social inequality, because unlike psychics and channelers it's somewhat difficult to opt-out of society. I know both progressive, and non-progressive skeptics. Just the same way that I know both feminist and MRA atheists. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{lavishly loquacious} 22:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not just that. There's a "Party Line" to be made when it comes to creationism or alternative medicine. When it comes to religion, for instance, people can rattle off the tropes easily enough, but have no fucking clue how to derive that from base principles. When you turn skepticism against social issues, there's no line to tow, there's no guidance, people are left to make it up. What you're seeing is the result of people actually trying to figure this shit out. It's quite enlightening, really. ^narchist 15:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

@Francois: I don't see an article on you here, so I don't see how you're officially a kook. In any case, this is not exactly an MRA-friendly wiki. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

No article on me, but I am on the official kook list. I freely admit that I am not important enough to warrant an article. As for this wiki not being MRA-friendly, seeing how badly it treats feminism, I find that rather hard to believe: see the hit pieces on Radical feminism, Radfem Hub and Transphobia (which labels some of the greatest feminist writers of the last century as transphobic). In comparison to the contempt displayed on those pages, the entry on MRAs, except for the last section, looks downright balanced. I am not stupid enough to believe that this is not deliberate. FrancoisTremblay (talk) 08:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot. Radical feminism is the only feminism... ^pathetic 15:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, FrancoisTremblay, I can understand your apprehension towards the skeptic movement, given its large crossover with organized atheism. However you should know that RationalWiki generally takes a pro-feminism editorial stance, sometimes at odds with other skeptics. I don't know if you're familiar with "elevatorgate," but most RationalWiki editors tended to side with PZ Myers, Rebecca Watson, and Blaghag (don't remember her name). We were highly critical of Richard Dawkins (if only in this particular instance...), and later Thunderfoot, when he attempted to reignite the controversy. Our articles should reflect this, if you'd care to have a look at them.

As for the articles you cited:

Radical feminism is actually quite favorable of the topic, until we get to the nasty bits about transphobia and blanket condemnations of peoples' sexual fetishes/lifestyle choices.

Radfem Hub, if our article is to be believed, condones and advocates murdering people based on their gender, religious beliefs, and dissenting takes on feminism. I don't know how we couldn't condemn such rhetoric. That said, I don't know much about the site, and I suppose it's always possible our article is based off of bad information. If that's the case, then you are welcome to correct any mistakes, even if it means rewriting the article altogether. This is a wiki, which means anyone can edit it. Even you (although I suspect you know that, given your apparent familiarity with wiki markup). But please, if you do decide to stay on and fix the article, please know that you may have to defend your edits if another editor disagrees with you.

RationalWiki editors are against transphobia, as we believe an individual has the right to determine their personal life, and that extends to full control over one's body (although I imagine the various reasons for supporting transgender rights might vary from person to person). If some great thinkers have expressed transphobic sentiment, then that is their fault- however this does not necessarily diminish their other achievements or ideas.

It seems we've found common ground with your criticisms of MRAs. You could be a valuable contributor to the site, if you so desire it.--"Shut up, Brx." 16:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Gee, let me think. Do I want to be a part of a web site that considers me to be a kook and considers feminism to be transphobic and evil? How about "no."

I do agree that the elevatorgate section is well-written, but supporting a woman who was harassed is a level of basic human decency which all atheists should have, not a "pro-feminism" badge of valor. Considering women to be human beings is not "feminist," it's called "being a decent human being." We really shouldn't even be having this debate in 2013; the fact that the American atheist community is stuck in such patriarchal debates just shows how backwards it's become. FrancoisTremblay (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

We certainly do not consider feminism to be transphobic and evil. Certain feminists we mention as transphobic, and we sometimes criticize individual feminists for expressing transphobic views, and we don't endorse extant ideas like male extinction (nor do we pretend that this is a common goal in feminism), but nowhere on this site do we claim that feminism is for "kooks." Read our article on feminism. Where is the part that says all feminists are kooks? At the end, there is a section on academic criticism of feminism, but this addresses only specific instances where some feminist thinkers have said some dubious things.

RationalWiki is almost definitely pro-feminism. But feminism is a broad movement and concept. We like Simone de Beauvoir, but we don't like Janice Raymond. Just because we criticize certain feminist thinkers doesn't mean we consider all feminists to be kooks. Your appraisal of us is unfair.--"Shut up, Brx." 02:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

"We don't like Janice Raymond"? That article was just a hit piece with not a single reference. That is why it no longer exists. ħuman 03:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Franc, the problem with these great writers is that many of them are transphobic, which is why they're listed. As noted with Richard Dawkins, being significant and influential doesn't mean that your words are privileged. A big part of the problem is that second wave feminism is, for better or for worse, closely tied to postmodernism, which, to the extent that it pays any attention to evidence at all, prefers to ignore it if it doesn't fit what the author wants to say. (This is arguably a huge abuse of the entire concept of deconstruction, but all that really proves is that Derrida himself was no better at using his own tools than Ayn Rand was at understanding capitalism.) That's where skeptical third-wave feminism comes in -- privilege and patriarchy are important concepts, but so is empirical thinking. (On a side note, it seems a bit odd that this is happening on the MRA page, a point of view espoused by people who have no respect for empiricism, logic, or women at all.) Anyway, the idea that feminism is treating women as human beings is a very well-established one because it's the fundamental guiding principle of the entire concept. (Yes, it is also part of being a decent human being. That this particular aspect of being a decent human being has a specific name to it is a result of the fact that people actually have to be reminded that it is part of being a decent human being.) EVDebs (talk) 08:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • PS I've added a request at the Saloon Bar to write an article on intersectionality (red link intentional), because it's the missing link in this discussion and I only understand the very basics of the concept. EVDebs (talk) 08:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)