MRAs

[vivosmith]

As I have sojourned across the internet, I have come across several MRAs . I feel mixed about the movement. On one hand, I met one liberal fro Europe who is part of the movement, but then on the other hand there is another man who basically thinks women should get back to the kitchen (which if done voluntarily may turn out better outcomes, but the law should not slant one way or another). So what do you think about MRAs?

[Guest Ethan Glover]

I believe in HRA's. These kinds of things are just trendy one topic fads I think. Even feminist movements go in and out based on the seasons and what's in the news. They're only relevant when the moon aligns.

[Wuzzums]

Even feminist movements go in and out based on the seasons and what's in the news. They're only relevant when the moon aligns.

 

I agree. Recently Michael Shermer has been accused of rape and he didn't really worry about it because apparently these sort of attacks happen regularly each year around the TAM event. During another event someone even accused him of fathering a child and denying him child support, even though he had a vasectomy many years prior.

 

The MRA's are from what I know the voice of reason in this whole debate. I do think it's badly named, though. They advocate human rights yet call it "men's rights" which all it does is polarize the debate. Of course it's gonna attract misogynists regardless because of the name alone. Same goes for feminism except the other way around, attracts human rights activists when the movement focuses on misandry.

[vivosmith]

That is a good point. I do think there are some straight headed feminist, but they are few and far between. ( Talked to one, but she happened to be a libertarian Marxist. I honestly got along better with her than I have with most so called anarchist XD .)

[Kevin Beal]

I think MRA's are great. There is a lot that is not philosophically based, and there is some anger that is better directed at people from their pasts, and there is a lot of anti-therapy stuff too. Those things aren't so great, but there is also a lot of original thinking that has come out of MRA work and forced millions to reconsider things that aren't so great about the way that men and boys are treated.

 

I tend to find a lot more value in philosophy, but there is some very interesting stuff that is being talked about among MRA's that AFAIK has never been really looked at before on this level. For example the idea of women as abusers, or the ethical considerations of circumcision. I also really appreciate the criticisms of feminism myself and the false moral arguments that many feminists employ.

 

I grew up with a lot of "men are lazy brutish pervert deadbeats" kind of stuff and a lot of female authority figures who (figuratively) got away with murder. So to see a real examination and rebuttal to these kinds of things that were damaging to me feels like a relief, some visibility for the men and boys who've got it tough, but got no sympathy.

[LovePrevails]

Sadly most of those I have spoken to have been very aggressive and immature and seem to really hate women

it was the minority of them who were acually reasonable rather than posting based on some scar tissue and so I wouldn't like to be associated with them

 

I'd rather use the term gender egalitarian

[Mike Fleming]

The propaganda that a lot of us men have faced in regard to the "men are useless" etc has been quite damaging to us and so I do appreciate the MRA to some extent.  

 

However, I don't fully sympathise with them and feel a lot more comfortable in the anarchist community.  When you look at people like GirlWritesWhat, these are the sensible, intelligent voices of reason in the movement, who I enjoy very much listening to.  But there also seems to be a lot of anger that wants to get back at feminists in many people.  Kind of like the pendulum swinging one way and now it's trying to swing back too far in the opposite direction.

 

Mens Rights doesn't seem like a philosophically based movement to me.  It's basically just saying feminists took control of government but we think it should be an equal situation.  But they don't, for the most part, seem to understand or care about the true nature of government.  Extreme feminism would never have been a problem without government.  As long as government is around, there will always be distortions in society, some more severe than others, as various groups try to take control.   Saying that one group in society (in this case feminists) is the problem seems to be missing the point to me.

[Kevin Beal]

Mens Rights doesn't seem like a philosophically based movement to me.  It's basically just saying feminists took control of government but we think it should be an equal situation.  But they don't, for the most part, seem to understand or care about the true nature of government.  Extreme feminism would never have been a problem without government.  As long as government is around, there will always be distortions in society, some more severe than others, as various groups try to take control.   Saying that one group in society (in this case feminists) is the problem seems to be missing the point to me.

This is a strawman.

 

MRA's are about more than feminism, and only a minority want the state to impose new laws. The majority it seems to me are libertarian, at least when it comes for men's rights. Many are anarchists like JohnTheOther, RockingMrE and TheCriticalG.

 

And the problems of feminism aren't entirely because we have a state either. Excusing female violence (for example) is championed by feminism but was around long before modern statist feminism. Things that toxic forms of feminism talk about today are not exclusive to feminism, and there is some overlap between MRA's and feminists insofar as they are egalitarians (I personally loathe egalitarianism, but that's beside the point).

 

There is considerable thought going on in the MRHM. There is a lot that is lacking, but so what? The point is that the plight of men and boys needs to be recognized, and the MRA's are just about the only ones bringing this to people's attentions. And in that, they are doing a good job of it. Who ever heard of "male disposability" before MRA's started talking about it?

[Mark Carolus]

There are "good" and "bad" people in every group.

The actions and words of the few, do not justify condemnation of the many.

I'd say look at their ideas and see if you agree with those.

 

If a group of libertarian people shot up a school, it does not mean all libertarians want to shoot up schools.

If 19 middle-eastern guys hijack a few plains and fly them into large towers, it does not mean you should attack the entire middle-east.

 

if............ah, you get the point

[Stefan Molyneux]

I don't remember a lot of people dismissing Malcolm X because he was angry - he had a lot to be angry about.

[Mike Fleming]

This is a strawman.

 

MRA's are about more than feminism, and only a minority want the state to impose new laws. The majority it seems to me are libertarian, at least when it comes for men's rights. Many are anarchists like JohnTheOther, RockingMrE and TheCriticalG.

 

And the problems of feminism aren't entirely because we have a state either. Excusing female violence (for example) is championed by feminism but was around long before modern statist feminism. Things that toxic forms of feminism talk about today are not exclusive to feminism, and there is some overlap between MRA's and feminists insofar as they are egalitarians (I personally loathe egalitarianism, but that's beside the point).

 

There is considerable thought going on in the MRHM. There is a lot that is lacking, but so what? The point is that the plight of men and boys needs to be recognized, and the MRA's are just about the only ones bringing this to people's attentions. And in that, they are doing a good job of it. Who ever heard of "male disposability" before MRA's started talking about it?

 

I don't want to put everyone in one category.  There are certainly individuals in the MRA, just as any group.

 

I just don't feel comfortable with them as a whole.   It's the same way I don't feel comfortable with the "atheist community" even though I'm an atheist.   I don't think, though I'm happy to be corrected, but I don't think they are coming from a philosophical position for the most part.  That it's more a reaction.  Same with atheists.   They claim to be skeptics but how many of them are really skeptical?  Certainly not the likes of Harris or Hitchens.

 

And I would say that the situation is because we have a state.  Hundreds of millions of dollars of tax money (perhaps billions) have gone into the propaganda.   If it was a free market there's no way there would have been that kind of financing for it.   That pot of money in the middle of society screams to be abused.  Do we blame the bankers, who abuse state power and money, for the GFC or do we blame the existence of the state (the violation of the NAP) for it? 

[PatrickC]

I just don't feel comfortable with them as a whole.   It's the same way I don't feel comfortable with the "atheist community" even though I'm an atheist.   I don't think, though I'm happy to be corrected, but I don't think they are coming from a philosophical position for the most part.  That it's more a reaction.  Same with atheists.   They claim to be skeptics but how many of them are really skeptical?  Certainly not the likes of Harris or Hitchens.

 

Just thought I'd point out that you're making a strawman again. How are Hitchins and Harris not skeptics exactly? Because they aren't coming from an anarchist perspective?I meet people at fdr who don't use philosophy either. But I don't dismiss their thoughts and ideas outright, just because I might consider them as having weaker positions elsewhere. I take their arguments on face value. Having a lack of comfort is not an argument against their ideas either.The MRA, or those that might affiliate with that term are some great thinkers for the most part, some of the best frankly. Karen Straughan, Warren Farrell, Jon the Other and many more. Whilst I don't agree with everything they say (like Hitch and Harris), I still recognise the value and the contribution they have brought the world.The mark of a good thinker is to understand that he still has a lot more to learn.

[Mike Fleming]

And I think you are trying to make my argument sound like something it isn't.  In regards to the atheists, they are skeptics when it suits them.  I never knock someone's contribution.  I'm not knocking MRA's contributions.  All I said is, I don't feel comfortable in a community that isn't completely rational.  Notice the emphasis on I.  Me.   That doesn't mean I'm knocking the community.  I don't feel comfortable around people advocating the political process or talking about politics like it is a valid concept is what I'm trying to say.   

[I_Am_Norwegian]

I consider myself an MRA and an anti-feminist. Of course it has it's share of idiots, but overall I've really enjoyed talking with the people over at /r/mensrights. I think we need someone to speak out for men, they are 80% of suicide victims, around half of domestic violence victims, they are falling further and further behind in education. If the rate at which men are declining in education continues, the last degree given to a man will be in 2025. We don't complain about them being 93% of workplace deaths, yet the fact that equal outcome isn't a thing is complained about incessantly.

 

Then there's the demonization of men and male sexuality. Their rhetoric relating to that often equates to "Don't be that black guy, don't steal", or "just because you're a Jew doesn't mean you have to commit fraud.", and people eat that shit right up.

 

I'm probably doing a terrible job at explaining myself. I'm not good at eloquently describing broad things. There's a lot of  reasons for why I'm an MRA, and even more for why I'm an anti-feminist.

[Guest Exceptionalist]

Sadly most of those I have spoken to have been very aggressive and immature and seem to really hate women

it was the minority of them who were acually reasonable rather than posting based on some scar tissue and so I wouldn't like to be associated with them

 

I'd rather use the term gender egalitarian

 

 

Being pissed of about the feminist drivel is only understandable. Even more when you sound like a feminist, which you do. What you read into their behaviour doesn't necessarily has to do something with reality, rather than your perception of reality. You confuse being reasonable with neutral, which is impossible. If you personal invested into something, it says nothing about your credibility. Let alone the overused and underdefined buzz word immature.

 

They aren't egalitarians, if their goal is reached, they disappear. Egalitarian is a buzz word, just like equality:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfMisSDfPwg

 

I don't remember a lot of people dismissing Malcolm X because he was angry - he had a lot to be angry about.

 

 

Yeah, the you-are-wrong-because-I-am-angry fallacy is just the other side of the coin of the you-are-wrong-because-you-are-angry-and-not-neutral fallacy.

[LovePrevails]

I think more of this sort of tone would be more successful:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUcoDrGvlsc&feature=youtu.be

[Kevin Beal]

Interesting and relevant podcast:

 

Am I too mean?

http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/am_i_too_mean.mp3

[HasMat]

As I have sojourned across the internet, I have come across several MRAs . I feel mixed about the movement. On one hand, I met one liberal fro Europe who is part of the movement, but then on the other hand there is another man who basically thinks women should get back to the kitchen (which if done voluntarily may turn out better outcomes, but the law should not slant one way or another). So what do you think about MRAs?

Was it intentional to ask about the individuals and the cause? They are separate questions, but as framed is begging for ad hominem.

 

If you listen to Stefan you will probably believe there are real injustices and gender inequality AGAINST men. that's the cause.

 

if you listen to MHRA you will probably believe they are jerks. Many believe in 'fuck their shit up' (their words not mine) as a basic quality of strategy. that's the ppl.

 

Their POV and experience says demure language does not elicit basic empathy afforded to victims. Personally I agree with that position, but think its non sequitar. if you are the dad of a family, and a million savages are raining down on your village, and your wife and kids expect you to throw your life away, why resist? its not like you have a worthwhile home to return to.

 

their cause is just, but its not worth fighting. if noone will stick up for the dads alongside them then there isnt a point. all the other classes have been championed by the white man. if those 'allies' dont give a shit then its not worth it. kind of an atlas shrugged moment. i dont think there has ever been a group of humans whose victimhood was ignored like this (total lack of empathy, hostility in fact, on society wide scale) that didnt end up extinct. Personally i think MHRA should direct their message more towards women. men cant win this war. socially they have no credibility when saying their needs arent met. that position is a nonstarter when non-men hear it, even if true. they need a 3rd party to notice and speak for them.

 

the content or manner of their message is not the problem here (whether demure or hostile), its the identity of the voice. identity based response, IOW raw bigotry.

 

if you think they are hostile its because you think their outrage is disproportion to their wrongs. Parsing victims proportion, when there are real wrongs, is the domain of appeasers who seek to excuse tyranny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain

for the record, MHRA's do not commit or advocate violence (as a movement). I think it would be hard to make a case that their response (free speech) is disproportionate, as the initiation of force is constantly applied to men in immoral way and they are just speaking about it.

 

Calling them hostile is another way of saying you dont give a shit they are exploited and they should keep their mouths shut. Meanwhile there is a pretend "War on Women". misdirection much?

[PatrickC]

I do find the term MHRA even more problematic than MRA. Insofar as it's a rather naive attempt at seducing the left with human rights. Rights are such a non plus topic for most anarchists, since we stand by the all encompassing principle of the NAP. I think it will backfire mind. Mainly because the left are so ensconced with feminists, who wont let go of their state privilege that easily.