Married with Children as a Parody of Men's Rights Activists

[Gorrath]

snip

Sorry, but I still thinks it's entirely irrelevant.
All of the arguments I ever see on the MRA side is "Not ALL MRA's, some do good work and have valid points" followed by no examples of good MRA's or valid points (at least not ones that aren't still inherent to the inequality between sexes that stem from the lesser perception of women)

This, this statement you made right here is exactly, precisely why MRA was founded. The accusation that anything wrong with the perception of men, maleness ect. exists only as a direct result of how women are treated lesser is the sort of claim that made many men dissatisfied with feminism's approach to social equality of the sexes. The inter-play between demeaning stereotypes of what a man and woman are supposed to be like do not solely exist because of women being treated as lessers. Assuming that a man is not as competent a caregiver as a woman simply because he is a man is a lesser perception of the MAN. Trying to cop-out by claiming that it really is just because of a lesser perception of the woman is doing exactly what people accuse MRAs of doing when they post shit like #notallmen, changing the discussion about what's wrong with the perception of men in society and making the discussion about women instead.

What's more, this co-opting of a point about society's perception of men and making it about women is the sort of thing that would be used as a serious point if the sexes were reversed. It sends the message, just like with the crazies, that MRAs co-opting a discussion about women's issues are to be laughed off and not taken seriously, but that a feminist engaged in exactly the same behavior have a valid point. Which leads us to:

,and also "Feminism has crazy people too so what gives?". Like that somehow makes this OK, or even just go away.

The comment isn't, "Feminism has crazy people too so what gives?", it is "Feminism has crazy people too, and is allowed to distance/disavow/demonstrate those people are nuts, but MRA is not, so what gives?" MRA is somehow not allowed to to distance itself from its crazies while also explicitly expected to do so, even with a crazy who isn't even actually linked to MRA!

If a movement and its defenders can't keep on point without flinging poo at something else in a single discussion, no wonder they can never be taken seriously by the general population.

I believe we have unfair standard number 3 cropping up here. MRA is accused of having crazies and misogynists. MRA attempts to distance itself from said crazy misogynist. MRA is told it's not allowed to because "notruescotsman" fallacy. MRA asks why feminism gets to use "notruescotsman" but MRA can't. MRA is promptly accused of not staying on topic/flinging poo. That's one pretty no-win scenario we've got there. Of course we know the reason feminism is taken seriously is because feminism is fantastic at staying on point and not flinging poo, right?

Everyone comparing MRM to Feminism when they have their bullshit called out makes the entire concept sound childish and flawed. If the only argument that an MRA defender has is "we aren't taken seriously compared to feminists who also have crazies" they have no ground to stand on, and their issue is inane.

Talk about what's correct, incorrect and inform of the positives, and you'll have people listening. If the biggest issue you're championing is that no one is listening to your issues, you're going about it the wrong way. That's just preaching to a choir of self-victimized children.

Funny, you could replace MRA with feminist in every instance in that paragraph and I'm willing to bet my life's savings you'd be called out as an MRA. Claiming that all MRA has to assert is that "we don't get treated like feminists" and "no one listen to us" is ridiculous. While both are points that can and should be made, neither represent anywhere near the "only" things MRA has to say. You are engaging in exactly the same fallacies that are used against feminism and that are called out as fallacies when leveled at feminism. You are engaging in exactly the same behavior that certain MRAs I could name are engaged in with feminism. It is wrong when its leveled at feminism and it is equally wrong when its leveled at MRA. It kills me when I see someone chastise MRAs for doing these things to feminism, and then going right about doing exactly the same thing themselves to MRA.

Quick edit: Tonality can be hard to read, especially with heated issues like these. Please be aware that everything I have to say is meant to come from a place of trying to attain mutual understanding. If anything I've written offends you or seems like an attack on your character, I promise you I do not intend for it to read that way. In fact, I appreciate you taking the time to engage with me on this issue.

 

[Gorrath]

snipped myself, sounds dirty, I know

I think some of it stems from victim boasting and group think. The idea that one party's victim-hood is more important than the other. It's from my own observations of the MRA vs Feminist rhetoric. I could be way off and grossly simplifying the issue. I'd be interested in that essay of yours.

I do look at the genuine issues raised from both parties though. The MRA appears to have come about because US fathers felt poorly served in custody and divorce courts. The feminists for inequality with men. I suppose one problem that I have with ideologies or causes is when is equal, equal. Enough, enough. It rubs me the wrong way when a lot of the sillier white collar goals are taken seriously by people who should know better (Low numbers of woman in powerful jobs, their supposed poor representation in pop fiction, etc.) and the same for their goofier conspiracy theory-like concepts like patriarchy and rape culture.

They all look so trivial to someone who is genuinely attempting to help people, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

I agree with your assessment that victim-boasting and group-think are both issues at play between MRA and Feminism. It goes back to that self-serving bit me and another person were discussing above. Also, rape culture and patriarchy are not necessarily crazy conspiracy type-things. What happens is, just like with the concept of privilege, the academic notion of these subjects get misapplied so often that they become unrecognizable out in the "wild". The misuse of such ideas ends up making them seem batshit, just like MRA is often seen as batshit because of people not understanding the core of the ideology.

I'd write that essay for you just because you're interested, but I'm engaged in a bunch of long-winded (my fault) conversation already. If you read the replies I'm making to other's you may find some of what I'd say in that essay though. Also, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a damned hero. Her courage in the face of overwhelming danger to her life is on-par with any soldier I ever served with and greater than many.

You can white knight for me, just so long as you don't get bitter when I reject your advances afterward. I'm friendzoning you preemptively!

(This is a joke. It is only a joke. NO MRAs, feminists, homosexuals or heterosexuals were harmed in the making of this joke.)

No more bitter than Bob sir! ;-P

Also, I've no idea what friendzoning is! Heh

Hah! Friendzoning is described as when a person relegates another person to simply being a friend when that person wants to be romantic/intimate. This usually goes along with the idea that white knighting, or doing other favors for a girl will help her see you as a "nice guy" and therefore help you get into her pants. But White knighting for me won't get you into my pants, so friendzoned is you I'm afraid! (Oh so presumptive of me, I know!)

 

[Something Amyss]

It's kind of sad that the general view of MRA groups are labeled as hateful, misogynist and ridiculous where some groups like Fathers 4 Justice, Save Indian Family Foundation and National Coalition for Men actually do some good work. It's almost like how those tumblr feminist don't represent the entirety of feminism as a whole just how a single angry guy with a gun doesn't represent all MRAs.

Of course, both the NCfM and SPIF have doner things that fit right into the description of MRAs in the negative sense. I mean, maybe they do good as well, but it's hard to take serious any "justice" organisation that opposes laws against marital rape because it would lead to a breakdown of relationships.

But then, just the fact that you're comparing mainstream organisations to a bunch of bloggers is the height of false equivalence in the first place. But then, that's kind of the problem with an untenable position.

Honestly, I'd side with NOMAAM before I sided with a group that advocated the persistence of marital rape as defense of the "family."

I have my likes and dislikes of both sides but I find it's better to eat popcorn and call them all idiots from a distance.

Do you also feel this way about other groups? Say, trans rights?

Men commit suicide at four times the rate as women

Inflated number aside, there is much closer parity between men and women attempting suicide. Men die more often because of the more violent means used. The rate of death is used to dishonestly misrepresent men as more prone to social problems. Can you really preach "reasonable" MRAs while using dishonest portrayal?

 

[Gorrath]

Inflated number aside, there is much closer parity between men and women attempting suicide. Men die more often because of the more violent means used. The rate of death is used to dishonestly misrepresent men as more prone to social problems. Can you really preach "reasonable" MRAs while using dishonest portrayal?

There is also much closer parity between men and women as the primary assailants in domestic abuse cases than what I see bandied about by those fighting for the protection of women from men. And yet these skewed statistics leveraged as fodder for propping up activism do not seem to be treated as unreasonable when leveraged this way by feminism. I won't defend an MRA when engaging in this behavior, it is intellectually dishonest (though many MRAs don't actually know they are engaging in dishonest statistics, they are parroting what they read without context or sources.)

However, I would also ask why we can use these poorly contextualized statistics as a reason to brush off MRA but not feminism? Why should such tactics be used to demonstrate how unreasonable MRA is without applying the same treatment to feminism? I'm not saying you are engaged in this special treatment of feminism, I can't really tell from what you've written here, you may very well find feminism to be unreasonable when it does this as well. You might call this out when you see feminists do it too. If you do hold MRA especially accountable for this and not feminism though, I'd like to know why.

 

[Shodanbot]

I'm a little tired, but I'm going to try.

Funny thing - the Supreme Court of California should be deciding this week if its free speech to make death threats on an internet forum.

Don't live in USA, not my problem.

And how is this hate mail any different from that which Theo van Gogh received, exactly? He similarly said a lot of things critical about the religious beliefs of others. In his case, it ended with him being shot eight times as he rode his bicycle to work. That wasn't a "troll", but you'd have his threats dismissed as such. Dawkins can laugh it off if he wants, but I certainly wouldn't surprised if somebody made an attempt to harm him, and no matter how he responds to the threats, doesn't dminish the possiblity of somebody actually following through with one.

Videogamers don't base laws on the bible of Zelda. They haven't quite invaded the class room with their alternative to scientific theory. They have yet to cut off peoples heads for the great mighty trinity of Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft. Their hate mail is incomparable to a religious group, whose texts state to kill the apostate, unbeliever and heathen alike. To name a few. Yet Dawkins and Van Goth soldiered on, fought for non-trivial issues and faced their critics in spite of the danger. I'm JAQing off here: What's Anita's excuse?

In the United States, yes, it is. The government has shown the ability to actually persecute the people if it gives an arse, but considering the overwhelming volume of threats she has received, it would be infeasbile to do so.

I agree. And the armed guards and metal detectors at the Game Developers Choice Awards helped discourage any of the trolls who made those overwhelming volume of threats. Oh yeah, I'm thinking of someone else.

She was also the person who wrote the film for which Theo van Gogh was assassinated. Still, doesn't make the threats against her any more or less credible until they're investigated.

Thanks, I didn't know that. I've got it! I call it: Schrodinger's Threat.

You're saying the goals she's acclaimed towards working for are meaningless, so, yeah, you are basically saying that nobody should spend time discussing anything political regarding videogames.

No, that's not what I said, let me put it back you:

MarsAtlas:
She's irrelevant within the context of gaming as a medium, though, so if your intent is to say "Hey, look at an activist doing real work",

Me:
My intent was exactly that, she is an activist doing real work. Anita, on the other hand, is "educating" videogame, TV and film writers on how to avoid hurting the feelings of first world middleclass girls\women. Fairly trivial stuff in comparison.

MarsAtlas:
you're doing nothing but belittling gaming as an artform.

Me:
Yep, sure I am.

I responded with "Yep, sure I am.", because I was insulted by the impression you gave me that the work of Anita was even minutely close to the relevance of Ayaan's. So I dismissed you. And sir, art doesn't need to be political to be art. Is any other art belittled for lack of politics?

And I'm going to bed now.

 

[chikusho]

This, this statement you made right here is exactly, precisely why MRA was founded.

So, the MRA was founded to counteract a correct assessment?

The accusation that anything wrong with the perception of men, maleness ect. exists only as a direct result of how women are treated lesser is the sort of claim that made many men dissatisfied with feminism's approach to social equality of the sexes. The inter-play between demeaning stereotypes of what a man and woman are supposed to be like do not solely exist because of women being treated as lessers.

Naturally, a person you hold to a higher standard, with greater hopes and expectations of personal agency and success, will be judged more harshly when he fails.

Assuming that a man is not as competent a caregiver as a woman simply because he is a man is a lesser perception of the MAN.Trying to cop-out by claiming that it really is just because of a lesser perception of the woman is doing exactly what people accuse MRAs of doing when they post shit like #notallmen, changing the discussion about what's wrong with the perception of men in society and making the discussion about women instead.

Assuming that a woman is a better caregiver because she's a woman "and that's what women are supposed to do", however, is not.
Someone earlier in the thread put it quite well I think, the #NotAllMen crap is just people inserting themselves into a conversation where they had no reason to be, at the very least not in the capacity of some sort of victim. To me, the fact that they are so hurt by other people speaking poorly of bad men in general terms says more about them than it does about their supposed cause.

What's more, this co-opting of a point about society's perception of men and making it about women is the sort of thing that would be used as a serious point if the sexes were reversed. It sends the message, just like with the crazies, that MRAs co-opting a discussion about women's issues are to be laughed off and not taken seriously, but that a feminist engaged in exactly the same behavior have a valid point.

I'm having a hard time following here. Examples?

The comment isn't, "Feminism has crazy people too so what gives?", it is "Feminism has crazy people too, and is allowed to distance/disavow/demonstrate those people are nuts, but MRA is not, so what gives?" MRA is somehow not allowed to to distance itself from its crazies while also explicitly expected to do so, even with a crazy who isn't even actually linked to MRA!

Of course, MRA's can do whatever they please. Painting lines and taking sides, however, will never, ever help them. While feminism and feminists are fighting for causes and against injustices, oppression, perception and a patriarchal system, MRA defenders paint themselves as fighting against people who are fighting against injustice.

MRA is accused of having crazies and misogynists. MRA attempts to distance itself from said crazy misogynist. MRA is told it's not allowed to because "notruescotsman" fallacy. MRA asks why feminism gets to use "notruescotsman" but MRA can't. MRA is promptly accused of not staying on topic/flinging poo. That's one pretty no-win scenario we've got there. Of course we know the reason feminism is taken seriously is because feminism is fantastic at staying on point and not flinging poo, right?

More like: MRA gets criticized. MRA defenders starts pointing fingers and flinging poo. The shitstorm rages on forever. The end.

Funny, you could replace MRA with feminist in every instance in that paragraph and I'm willing to bet my life's savings you'd be called out as an MRA.

Well yeah, because replacing MRA with feminist in every instance in that paragraph would make it laughably inept. However, the monikers are where they are supposed to be, so that's not really an issue.

Claiming that all MRA has to assert is that "we don't get treated like feminists" and "no one listen to us" is ridiculous. While both are points that can and should be made, neither represent anywhere near the "only" things MRA has to say. You are engaging in exactly the same fallacies that are used against feminism and that are called out as fallacies when leveled at feminism. You are engaging in exactly the same behavior that certain MRAs I could name are engaged in with feminism. It is wrong when its leveled at feminism and it is equally wrong when its leveled at MRA. It kills me when I see someone chastise MRAs for doing what you just did to feminism, and then going right about doing exactly the same thing themselves to MRA.

Actually, I've yet to say a single thing about any MRA's. I'm just talking about their defenders. Whatever good point any single person within any single MRA might have will always instantly be drowned out by the impotent rage of a thousand manchildren.

Quick edit

Yeah, done that mistake before. But ragemode is offline .

 

[Megalodon]

Men commit suicide at four times the rate as women

Inflated number aside, there is much closer parity between men and women attempting suicide. Men die more often because of the more violent means used. The rate of death is used to dishonestly misrepresent men as more prone to social problems. Can you really preach "reasonable" MRAs while using dishonest portrayal?

The number doesn't seem to be that inflated. I've found sources citing a US rate of 4.5 suicides per 100,000 while men were at 19. Admittedly, those are 1990 numbers. So then we have some UK figures, where an almost 2:1 ratio of male:female suicide in 1981 has increased to 3.5:1 in 2012, so pretty close to Machine Man's four times. Then there's data from Ireland with the ratio at 6:1 in 'favour' of boys. Where's the dishonest inflation of numbers again?

In fact, there's evidence that women attempt suicide more frequently than men, yet more men complete the deed. The reasons for both of these discrepancies are worth investigating. The use of more violent means is only one potential explanation (which is also somewhat doubtful as firearms are a very common suicide tool for both genders where they are available). A quick google couldn't dig up a conclusive conclusion, but other explanation include better recall bias among women (more likely to admit to failed attempts), greater alcohol consumption among men, women adapting better to traumatic life change, and higher rates of clinical depression among women (which is then treated, so suicide is not completed).

So overall, I'd say that this suicide discrepancy is exactly the sort of thing MRA groups should be attempting to focus attention on. The greater rate of male suicide suggests that there is a problem here, and the fact is worsening would suggest that nothing is being done to combat it. This should be of concern to anyone who claims to give a shit about other people, rather than merely the ideology they've pinned their colours to (Not saying you're necessarily doing that, but that sort of entrenched ideology superceding reality is the problem with too many on both sides of this pointless 'war').

Sources:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/1047279794900620# (US data and possible explanations)
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/subnational-health4/suicides-in-the-united-kingdom/2012/index.html
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/subnational-health4/suicides-in-the-united-kingdom/2012/stb-uk-suicides-2012.html#tab-Suicides-in-the-United-Kingdom-1981-to-2012-Registrations (UK data)
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CC8QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F11883375_Suicides_and_serious_suicide_attempts_two_populations_or_one%2Ffile%2F9fcfd509ab15577bb6.pdf&ei=eHugU-DGDZTJ0AWY9oCACA&usg=AFQjCNGfhoCY2kFDDFcy6cEk23M1no20kQ&bvm=bv.68911936,d.d2k
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24929354 (Irish Data)

 

[Lady Larunai]

I have my likes and dislikes of both sides but I find it's better to eat popcorn and call them all idiots from a distance.

Do you also feel this way about other groups? Say, trans rights?

Yep, If it ends up about taking sides I will honestly call anyone an idiot and walk away, but if you want to be more specific I don't feel trans issues should be covered by the military base cover as its a personal issue not a military one, same with the nave and breast implants for female sailors, its a personal elective issue not one caused by the military.

 

[Lady Larunai]

Men commit suicide at four times the rate as women

Inflated number aside, there is much closer parity between men and women attempting suicide. Men die more often because of the more violent means used. The rate of death is used to dishonestly misrepresent men as more prone to social problems. Can you really preach "reasonable" MRAs while using dishonest portrayal?

Compared to Feminisms oh so honest portrayal of similar statistics.. right

to add in Australia its 5 out of every 6 suicides are males.

 

[Gorrath]

This, this statement you made right here is exactly, precisely why MRA was founded.

So, the MRA was founded to counteract a correct assessment?

That is not a correct assessment. As stated, both sets of stereotypes rely on an interplay between one another as both sexes are assigned unfair and unrepresentative static characteristics. Saying that it all exists just because women are considered "lesser" is an oversimplification and wrong. Saying that a man is worse at something than a woman relies on assumptions about what it means to be a man and a woman, not just the claim that women are inferior. Saying that men are inferior caregivers is a direct commentary on women, of course, but saying that men are lesser caregivers does not imply that somehow the man is greater than the woman because he is worse at something. That logic does not in any way compute. Men are worse at something than women because men are greater than women?

The accusation that anything wrong with the perception of men, maleness ect. exists only as a direct result of how women are treated lesser is the sort of claim that made many men dissatisfied with feminism's approach to social equality of the sexes. The inter-play between demeaning stereotypes of what a man and woman are supposed to be like do not solely exist because of women being treated as lessers.

Naturally, a person you hold to a higher standard, with greater hopes and expectations of personal agency and success, will be judged more harshly when he fails.

I don't understand what you mean. Women are expected to be better caretakers of children. That does not somehow translate to men being held to a higher standard, it translates to the woman being held to a higher standard because of unfounded expectations built into traditional gender roles. Every instance of a woman being held to a higher standard is not somehow actually the man being held to a higher standard. Again, this logic does not compute.

Assuming that a man is not as competent a caregiver as a woman simply because he is a man is a lesser perception of the MAN.Trying to cop-out by claiming that it really is just because of a lesser perception of the woman is doing exactly what people accuse MRAs of doing when they post shit like #notallmen, changing the discussion about what's wrong with the perception of men in society and making the discussion about women instead.

Assuming that a woman is a better caregiver because she's a woman "and that's what women are supposed to do", however, is not.
Someone earlier in the thread put it quite well I think, the #NotAllMen crap is just people inserting themselves into a conversation where they had no reason to be, at the very least not in the capacity of some sort of victim. To me, the fact that they are so hurt by other people speaking poorly of bad men in general terms says more about them than it does about their supposed cause.

So, if I get you straight, #notallmen is wrong because it is MRAs co-opting a discussion about violence towards women and making it about men. But, a conversation about how men are viewed as inferior caregivers is actually a conversation about women and their plight as "lessers". #notallmen is a reaction wherein MRAs want to distance themselves from a person and his ideology that the media incorrectly associated with them and as a reply to #yesallwomen, a hashtag about how women, all women, experience fear of men. Somehow, men are not part of the discussion about women's fear of men and, especially, aren't allowed to take a victimized tone when they feel the specter of sexism being leveled their way? Feminists co-opting a discussion about male gender roles and expectations is fine. MRAs co-opting a discussion about women's fear of men is wrong. The double-standard at work here is not okay. And to clarify, #notallmen is stupid, but not any less stupid than when a feminist attempts the same thing.

What's more, this co-opting of a point about society's perception of men and making it about women is the sort of thing that would be used as a serious point if the sexes were reversed. It sends the message, just like with the crazies, that MRAs co-opting a discussion about women's issues are to be laughed off and not taken seriously, but that a feminist engaged in exactly the same behavior have a valid point.

I'm having a hard time following here. Examples?

The examples are the ones I've been banging on about. Double standards with regard to co-opting conversations, excising crazies, about how MRA is laughed off as a joke when the core ideology is the same as that of feminism but the activism is geared toward men's issues instead of women's issues (which if either movement was really focused on equality, they would admit that all the legitimate issues should be addressed equally.) Any point made by a "member" of either group should be assessed on its own merits, not dismissed out of hand or accepted because of which movement generated it.

The comment isn't, "Feminism has crazy people too so what gives?", it is "Feminism has crazy people too, and is allowed to distance/disavow/demonstrate those people are nuts, but MRA is not, so what gives?" MRA is somehow not allowed to to distance itself from its crazies while also explicitly expected to do so, even with a crazy who isn't even actually linked to MRA!

Of course, MRA's can do whatever they please. Painting lines and taking sides, however, will never, ever help them. While feminism and feminists are fighting for causes and against injustices, oppression, perception and a patriarchal system, MRA defenders paint themselves as fighting against people who are fighting against injustice.

You assessment of what MRA is about here seems to be derived from the idea that Feminism is about social justice for everyone and that MRA is simply the enemy of feminism. While this is a popular assessment, it is completely, factually wrong. There is nothing in the core ideology of MRA or feminism that make the two antagonists. Instead, feminists and MRAs alike make antagonists of one another by making their movement primarily about their own sex and dismissing the issues of the other.

MRA is a reaction to the perceived failure of feminism to treat men's issues with the thought and respect that they deserve. This perception is driven by the way feminism is often equated with "women's rights" thus making men's rights a secondary consideration if a consideration at all. MRAs also fight against a system of injustice wherein traditional gender roles cause courts/employers/society to treat them unfairly in a broad range of instances leading to specific disadvantages all because of their sex. Essentially, MRA is just what it says on the tin, people who advocate for the rights of men where it is found that their sex puts them at a disadvantage. And again, there is nothing inherent to this core ideology that makes it automatically at odds with feminism. It is the members on each side that do that.

MRA is accused of having crazies and misogynists. MRA attempts to distance itself from said crazy misogynist. MRA is told it's not allowed to because "notruescotsman" fallacy. MRA asks why feminism gets to use "notruescotsman" but MRA can't. MRA is promptly accused of not staying on topic/flinging poo. That's one pretty no-win scenario we've got there. Of course we know the reason feminism is taken seriously is because feminism is fantastic at staying on point and not flinging poo, right?

More like: MRA gets criticized. MRA defenders starts pointing fingers and flinging poo. The shitstorm rages on forever. The end.

Come on friend, the debate about how and when notruescotsman applies to feminism and MRA is something both sides engage in. We can see that right in this thread. You're telling me you honestly don't see this happening, that it's JUST MRAs engaged in this? What I describe has literally been claimed/denied by both feminists and MRAs in like, the first three pages of this exact thread.

Funny, you could replace MRA with feminist in every instance in that paragraph and I'm willing to bet my life's savings you'd be called out as an MRA.

Well yeah, because replacing MRA with feminist in every instance in that paragraph would make it laughably inept. However, the monikers are where they are supposed to be, so that's not really an issue.

So, you essentially admit that you are engaged in the same kind of mud-flinging you accuse MRAs of, it's just that when you do it it's fine, and when MRA defenders do it, it's "laughable?" I think we've struck the very essence of why you and I disagree on these subjects. I'm not even defending the poorly thought out, fallacy filled arguments MRAs and their defenders make, I'm just asking that feminism and MRA be treated the same way. The ideas that are good ones be accepted and assessed and the logical fallacies and mud-flinging be called out as such.

Claiming that all MRA has to assert is that "we don't get treated like feminists" and "no one listen to us" is ridiculous. While both are points that can and should be made, neither represent anywhere near the "only" things MRA has to say. You are engaging in exactly the same fallacies that are used against feminism and that are called out as fallacies when leveled at feminism. You are engaging in exactly the same behavior that certain MRAs I could name are engaged in with feminism. It is wrong when its leveled at feminism and it is equally wrong when its leveled at MRA. It kills me when I see someone chastise MRAs for doing what you just did to feminism, and then going right about doing exactly the same thing themselves to MRA.

Actually, I've yet to say a single thing about any MRA's. I'm just talking about their defenders. Whatever good point any single person within any single MRA might have will always instantly be drowned out by the impotent rage of a thousand manchildren.

I think it shouldn't be a surprise that MRAs tend to be the main defenders of MRA. I'm not sure how you can say you've not said anything about MRA when part of out discussion has been about what MRA stands for. What's more, if you let the screaming of a thousand man-children drown out a good idea, the fault is your own, just as it is the fault of those who hate feminism when all they know about it is that some crazy lady said all men were rapists and should have their junk cut off. You are obviously aware that this is a problem with the way feminism is perceived, so why not turn that same understanding toward MRA and its defenders?

Quick edit

Yeah, done that mistake before. But ragemode is offline .

Thanks for that. No reason we can't be mates just because we disagree about stuff. Cheers.

 

[chronobreak]

I fight for fairness in the judicial system regarding fathers of their children. I fight against discrimination against men seeking employment positions historically taken by women. I fight so my young son doesn't have to grow up in a world where every man is considered a potential threat or pedophile. I fight for the men who choose to be homemakers and are ridiculed for their decision.

If this makes me a terrible person, so be it. If some people cannot look beyond a caricature to realize there are serious issues men face, that is their problem, and speaks more to them than it does to those of us willing to endure it.

 

[chikusho]

That is not a correct assessment. As stated, both sets of stereotypes rely on an interplay between one another as both sexes are assigned unfair and unrepresentative static characteristics. Saying that it all exists just because women are considered "lesser" is an oversimplification and wrong.

Thing is, in the first stage it's not about women being considered lesser. Rather, it's about women being considered, at all. Being considered as lesser comes a bit later on the scale, but even then the same problem arises with being a better caretaker and being a better anything at all.
To put it very bluntly, since everyone always grow up and see women in the role of housekeepers and caretakers, and never see men fill those same shoes, it becomes unfathomable that a man could do that job.
On the flip side, since everyone always grow up and see all men in positions of power and respect and women in positions of submission, it becomes unfathomable that a woman could adequately perform in a position of power and respect.
This is a perception that is true for both men and women in every field. So to have "caretaking" being the only field in which a man is automatically considered lesser, that seems like a pretty good place to be in tbh.
Either way, with increased gender equality women gain agency and the opportunity to make their own way in the world. This automatically opens up for *EDIT* men to fill a more caretaking role, and in turn be accepted as plausible caretakers.

Frankly, I find that *EDIT* the perception of men being lesser caretakers to be rather silly. In Sweden, where I'm from, shared parental responsibility has been trending for the last 5 to 15 years at least.

I don't understand what you mean. Women are expected to be better caretakers of children. That does not somehow translate to men being held to a higher standard, it translates to the woman being held to a higher standard because of unfounded expectations built into traditional gender roles. Every instance of a woman being held to a higher standard is not somehow actually the man being held to a higher standard. Again, this logic does not compute.

I think what you're getting at is rather: Women are expected to take care of children. Not necessarily be better caretakers. Either way, it's two separate things.
Being held to a higher standard is about men expected to grow up and be a good, hard working and succesful person. To make another extreme example, in some cultures, when a daughter is born the father get's dissapointed in the mother, because only boys matter. Only boys can be expected to hold responsibility, and only boys can carry on the familys true legacy, etc. Think of my statement as a more subtle version of that.

So, if I get you straight, #notallmen is wrong because it is MRAs co-opting a discussion about violence towards women and making it about men.

No, #notallmen is some men butting into a conversation about bad people and how they hurt women by saying "I was not the one who did that! Look at me! Who has two thumbs and didn't do that thing you're talking about? This guy!".
Like if victims of robbery were to bring attention to their experiences, and petty thieves started speaking up like "I never used a knife, this is offensive!"

But, a conversation about how men are viewed as inferior caregivers is actually a conversation about women and their plight as "lessers". #notallmen is a reaction wherein MRAs want to distance themselves from a person and his ideology that the media incorrectly associated with them and as a reply to #yesallwomen, a hashtag about how women, all women, experience fear of men.

I have no frame of reference for any such discussion or response.

Somehow, men are not part of the discussion about women's fear of men and, especially, aren't allowed to take a victimized tone when they feel the specter of sexism being leveled their way?

Because the correct response in that situation would be support. Something which would get your message clear across without making you look like an attention starved child.

You assessment of what MRA is about here seems to be derived from the idea that Feminism is about social justice for everyone and that MRA is simply the enemy of feminism.

Again, still just talking about MRA defenders.

Come on friend, the debate about how and when notruescotsman applies to feminism and MRA is something both sides engage in. We can see that right in this thread. You're telling me you honestly don't see this happening, that it's JUST MRAs engaged in this? What I describe has literally been claimed/denied by both feminists and MRAs in like, the first three pages of this exact thread.

Yet I didn't see a single one which didn't contain that kind of bashing, rather than keeping to a relevant point. MRA's get attacked, MRA defenders start pointing fingers, and the defenders of the other supposed side spend time beating down that defense. If it was focused, to the point and didn't just spew blame around, things might've turned out different.

So, you essentially admit that you are engaged in the same kind of mud-flinging you accuse MRAs of, it's just that when you do it it's fine, and when MRA defenders do it, it's "laughable?" I think we've struck the very essence of why you and I disagree on these subjects. I'm not even defending the poorly thought out, fallacy filled arguments MRAs and their defenders make, I'm just asking that feminism and MRA be treated the same way. The ideas that are good ones be accepted and assessed and the logical fallacies and mud-flinging be called out as such.

No, I essentially admit that changing the names would make it into an incorrect statement and render it completely irrelevant. Try, for instance, changing out the names of Rihanna and Chris Brown in a discussion about domestic abuse. It wouldn't matter, because it would make the whole discussion a farce.

I think it shouldn't be a surprise that MRAs tend to be the main defenders of MRA. I'm not sure how you can say you've not said anything about MRA when part of out discussion has been about what MRA stands for.

I'm talking about the defenders. I make no claim as to where their allegiances lie, what their purposes are or whether or not they are embraced by any or all of the mythical real MRA's.
Sure, I've adressed a handful of perceptions regarding some pertinent issues, but I don't really know or care about what these real MRA's actually stand for. I'm just reacting to the conduct I keep seeing occur wherever "MRA" is whispered somewhere on the internet.

What's more, if you let the screaming of a thousand man-children drown out a good idea, the fault is your own,

If they want followers, it's their job to convince me of their cause. It's not my job to seek out all causes, because that would be insane.

Thanks for that. No reason we can't be mates just because we disagree about stuff. Cheers.

Internet bros for life.

 

[blackrave]

Bob, you crazy whiteknighting bastard, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE???
I wan't to get away from this topic as [sub]fast [sub]as [sub]possible...[/sub][/sub][/sub]

 

[Machine Man 1992]

It's kind of sad that the general view of MRA groups are labeled as hateful, misogynist and ridiculous where some groups like Fathers 4 Justice, Save Indian Family Foundation and National Coalition for Men actually do some good work. It's almost like how those tumblr feminist don't represent the entirety of feminism as a whole just how a single angry guy with a gun doesn't represent all MRAs.

Of course, both the NCfM and SPIF have doner things that fit right into the description of MRAs in the negative sense. I mean, maybe they do good as well, but it's hard to take serious any "justice" organisation that opposes laws against marital rape because it would lead to a breakdown of relationships.

But then, just the fact that you're comparing mainstream organisations to a bunch of bloggers is the height of false equivalence in the first place. But then, that's kind of the problem with an untenable position.

Honestly, I'd side with NOMAAM before I sided with a group that advocated the persistence of marital rape as defense of the "family."

I have my likes and dislikes of both sides but I find it's better to eat popcorn and call them all idiots from a distance.

Do you also feel this way about other groups? Say, trans rights?

Men commit suicide at four times the rate as women

Inflated number aside, there is much closer parity between men and women attempting suicide. Men die more often because of the more violent means used. The rate of death is used to dishonestly misrepresent men as more prone to social problems. Can you really preach "reasonable" MRAs while using dishonest portrayal?

And this is point where I post all the stats I have:
https://www.afsp.org/understanding-suicide/facts-and-figures
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/18/male-suicides-three-times-women-samaritans-bristol

Ball's in your court, bro.

 

[Karadalis]

How come you're talking about some "looney" in your response to my general comment?

How come you're talking about some dude who killed people as a response to my general comment?

Maybe.. just maybe.. it has something to do with the lengthy video he made before killing people, where he explicitly states that his hatred towards everyone is due to him not being able to possess women.

THAT is why MRAs do have a point. It might be not a glaring one like what women have to deal with on a daily basis but it is still an issue. Men are simply worth less then women in the public opinion and till this changes that neither is more important then the other i say MRAs arent completly wrong (atleast those that do want to improve male rights and are not women hating cavemen)

So, what you're saying is that, instead of creating an equal society where people are judged by their skills, their actions and are expected to be in control of their own lives and fates, we should make sure we take more men less seriously so that ultimately more people are looked down on and pandered to?

Doesn't sound like such a good idea to me.

1) Well let me see... why am i talking about "some looney"? Well could be because the whole topic is about him and his actions and him being falsly related to MRA groups by a feminist? Or do you want to admit that your post was rather OI to begin with?

2) See answer NR. 1

3) Maybe just maybe he also released a 141 pages long manifesto where he made clear that he hated everyone equally, and he didnt only made one video he made several. And even if he made a video about explaining his hatred for women who dont put out that doesnt change the fact that he killed more men then women and no one seems to care for the 4 dudes he killed.

He was a racist, a msyogonist, a sociopath and he hated EVERYONE who seemed to have what he did not despite him being richer then most others and thus of a higher rank in his own twisted mind. Maybe you and everyone else focusing solely on the fact that he didnt held women in high regard as anything else then objects of his lust should dig a little bit deeper then this one youtube video to understand just how messed up the kid was in the head.

And lastly:

Okay dude.. seriously? Stop making up strawmen. I didnt exactly wrote a piece of philosophic questions there that can be interpreted either way. But just in case, let me simplify it just for you:

As long as male deaths are treated as less severe then the deaths of women in the public eye, MRA groups do have a point.

There.. that should be easy enough for you to understand.

Legit MRA groups (not those that simply want the 1920s back) are not a joke, not bullshit and not some form of patriarchy. The legitimate ones do not want to rule over women, they want to help men, they want the blatant favour of women in the public and in some cases in the eyes of the law to change so males are no longer seen as disposable (among other things that have been covered by other posters in this topic allready).

 

[Something Amyss]

There is also much closer parity between men and women as the primary assailants in domestic abuse cases than what I see bandied about by those fighting for the protection of women from men. And yet these skewed statistics leveraged as fodder for propping up activism do not seem to be treated as unreasonable when leveraged this way by feminism.

Unless your argument is "two wrongs make a right," and I hope it isn't, so what?

No, let me rephrase: When I say "so what?" I don't mean "so what if feminists purportedly lie?" chiefly because I don't think two wrongs make a right, but rather "how does that rationalise your offering a dishonest statistic to prove men have problems?"

However, I would also ask why we can use these poorly contextualized statistics as a reason to brush off MRA but not feminism?

Actually, all I've seen is a response with another statistic out of context.

But to the general statement, who says we can't? I'm addressing a misleading statistic here specifically because I've been confronted with it (and by someone supposedly preaching the reasonable nature of the MRM). It also happens to be something I'm intimately familiar with (suicide, that is). I don't know the contributing factors to domestic violence as well, especially the ones you're indicating.

However, when we're talking about the difference between MRA and feminists, I would note the previous mention of multiple supposedly "good" MRA groups who do things like oppose marital rape laws or even take stands against abuse against men but not against women. That's not good for anyone. You've got groups petulantly trying to get women drafted--even as women are fighting to be accepted in combat roles for the first time in US history--rather than getting rid of it an an archaic and unnecessary artifact. If we were to go to the equivalent length, feminism would be something along the lines of "only men should fight." If we were to go to the equivalent length on rape, feminism would be lobbying that only women could be raped, ever. That's the kind of petty, petulant point-scoring that would not just exist, but be mainstream, if there was true equity between the groups. The number of MRM groups which make women the focus of their "justice" is ridiculous. If this were just some trilby-wearing fuckers on reddit, that would be one thing, but when they're actively lobbying? Yeah, that's a bigger problem.

And what's the equivalent? Well, Tumblr, apparently. That's the primary example that gets given. That's kind of like comparing The Amazing Atheist's "religious zealotry" to the guys who flew planes into the WTC.

And I'll end where I probably should have started and left it at that: you yourself argued when RatherDull said that gender issues affect both sexes. That's why you brought up all these things that happen to men, as a contrary statement, though your own examples give the statement credibility. Men get abused as much as men? Sounds like not treating women like weak and helpless little creatures is at the root cause. That's also a feminist cause. Men get drafted as women have spent the last century trying to get into the military. Same coin, different sides, though I still maintain the solution is a volunteer army in the first place. Women can "seize men's assets?" Yes, because of still reinforced gender roles and the notion that women are dependent on men. Women get the kids? Well, that's shifted a lot, and got support from feminist causes, but again, once we stop treating women like they can't work or are only caregivers, we'll see a change here.

Oh, and the idea that even an accusation of sexual misconduct ruins a man's life is bullshit, since even being convicted and doing time doesn't necessarily lead to ostracism. I can't find a parallel to that.

But just the fact that someone said "issues that affect women affect men and vice versa" and you said "no way, it's totally different" should be telling. That does not sound like the words of someone who reasonably wants gender equality. It sounds like someone who wants theirs and only theirs.

Whoops! Just saw your other post to me:

And this is point where I post all the stats I have:
https://www.afsp.org/understanding-suicide/facts-and-figures
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/18/male-suicides-three-times-women-samaritans-bristol

Ball's in your court, bro.

I'm not your bro, bro. But neither link address what I said and the second link's numbers would actually confirm the statistics inflation I mentioned. Oh, and there's this, from your own statistics:

While males are 4 times more likely than females to die by suicide, females attempt suicide 3 times as often as males.

And you've effectively made my case for me.

 

[Something Amyss]

Compared to Feminisms oh so honest portrayal of similar statistics.. right

And if I felt two wrongs made a right, I would probably agree with that as a defense.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

There is also much closer parity between men and women as the primary assailants in domestic abuse cases than what I see bandied about by those fighting for the protection of women from men. And yet these skewed statistics leveraged as fodder for propping up activism do not seem to be treated as unreasonable when leveraged this way by feminism.

Unless your argument is "two wrongs make a right," and I hope it isn't, so what?

No, let me rephrase: When I say "so what?" I don't mean "so what if feminists purportedly lie?" chiefly because I don't think two wrongs make a right, but rather "how does that rationalise your offering a dishonest statistic to prove men have problems?"

However, I would also ask why we can use these poorly contextualized statistics as a reason to brush off MRA but not feminism?

Actually, all I've seen is a response with another statistic out of context.

But to the general statement, who says we can't? I'm addressing a misleading statistic here specifically because I've been confronted with it (and by someone supposedly preaching the reasonable nature of the MRM). It also happens to be something I'm intimately familiar with (suicide, that is). I don't know the contributing factors to domestic violence as well, especially the ones you're indicating.

However, when we're talking about the difference between MRA and feminists, I would note the previous mention of multiple supposedly "good" MRA groups who do things like oppose marital rape laws or even take stands against abuse against men but not against women. That's not good for anyone. You've got groups petulantly trying to get women drafted--even as women are fighting to be accepted in combat roles for the first time in US history--rather than getting rid of it an an archaic and unnecessary artifact. If we were to go to the equivalent length, feminism would be something along the lines of "only men should fight." If we were to go to the equivalent length on rape, feminism would be lobbying that only women could be raped, ever. That's the kind of petty, petulant point-scoring that would not just exist, but be mainstream, if there was true equity between the groups. The number of MRM groups which make women the focus of their "justice" is ridiculous. If this were just some trilby-wearing fuckers on reddit, that would be one thing, but when they're actively lobbying? Yeah, that's a bigger problem.

And what's the equivalent? Well, Tumblr, apparently. That's the primary example that gets given. That's kind of like comparing The Amazing Atheist's "religious zealotry" to the guys who flew planes into the WTC.

And I'll end where I probably should have started and left it at that: you yourself argued when RatherDull said that gender issues affect both sexes. That's why you brought up all these things that happen to men, as a contrary statement, though your own examples give the statement credibility. Men get abused as much as men? Sounds like not treating women like weak and helpless little creatures is at the root cause. That's also a feminist cause. Men get drafted as women have spent the last century trying to get into the military. Same coin, different sides, though I still maintain the solution is a volunteer army in the first place. Women can "seize men's assets?" Yes, because of still reinforced gender roles and the notion that women are dependent on men. Women get the kids? Well, that's shifted a lot, and got support from feminist causes, but again, once we stop treating women like they can't work or are only caregivers, we'll see a change here.

Oh, and the idea that even an accusation of sexual misconduct ruins a man's life is bullshit, since even being convicted and doing time doesn't necessarily lead to ostracism. I can't find a parallel to that.

But just the fact that someone said "issues that affect women affect men and vice versa" and you said "no way, it's totally different" should be telling. That does not sound like the words of someone who reasonably wants gender equality. It sounds like someone who wants theirs and only theirs.

Whoops! Just saw your other post to me:

And this is point where I post all the stats I have:
https://www.afsp.org/understanding-suicide/facts-and-figures
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/18/male-suicides-three-times-women-samaritans-bristol

Ball's in your court, bro.

I'm not your bro, bro. But neither link address what I said and the second link's numbers would actually confirm the statistics inflation I mentioned. Oh, and there's this, from your own statistics:

While males are 4 times more likely than females to die by suicide, females attempt suicide 3 times as often as males.

And you've effectively made my case for me.

What case? All you've done is say I'm wrong because reasons. And really, I didn't contest that women attempt suicide a lot, my focus was that men go through with it more. If anyone isn't making sense here it's you.

 

[DOOM GUY]

Al Bundy is a true American hero.

Also, totally need a new show like Married with Children.