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

[Megalodon]

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.

So did you mean inflation merely in the sense that the ratio has increased? Because it read like you were accusing MRAs of misrepresenting the data. Which would be a lie, as multiple sources have been brought up, showing a higher rate of achieved suicide among men.

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? You haven't offered a substantive explanation for why the lethality rate in male suicide is higher (your explanation being only one of several), or said anything to show why this isn't a problem. If anything you're dangerously close to the distaff counterpoint to the classic MRA strawman, 'this isn't worth making a fuss over because it affects women as well as/worse than men'. And you're technically right about that, bother genders do make suicide attempts, and some succeed but the question then becomes, do feminists care? If feminism is truly about gender equality and issues affecting both genders, then there should be evidence somewhere of feminists viewing this as a problem, calling for more therapy programs for suicidal men, encouraging men to come froward with such problems etc.

Now my views on this may well be warped from observed too many misandric, contemptible feminists online. But I get the general feeling that too many feminists would be greeting news of this disparity with glee, rather than the solemnity it deserves.

Interesting quote form the conclusions of one of the papers I linked earlier in this thread:

'Suicides and medically serious suicide attempts are two overlapping populations that
share common psychiatric diagnostic and history features, but are distinguished by gender and
patterning of psychiatric disorder.'

Separate populations, with some significant overlap, but possessing distinct aetiological traits. So it seems reasonable to me that tackling the problems of male suicide and female attempted suicide require somewhat different approaches, as they appear to be distinct issues. Which would support Machine Man's initial assertion that the higher rate of male suicide is a separate problem that has little to do with the situation of women, and would likely persist even if all women's issues were solved to feminists satisfaction.

Hope this made some from of sense, really need to sleep.

 

[Daemian Lucifer]

Interesting.So you take the faaar off the deep end part of a movement and present it as the norm.Then why arent you doint it for feminism as well?You dont think imbeciles exist in their ranks?You know,that stupid one that claims to have PTSD from twitter and is accusing actual war vets of harassing her when they point out how insensitive that is?Why dont you use her as the norm for feminism then?

Because that exact idiocy is what you did with this article.Shameful.

 

[Dragonbums]

You know,that stupid one that claims to have PTSD from twitter and is accusing actual war vets of harassing her when they point out how insensitive that is?Why dont you use her as the norm for feminism then?

So if she was that prominent of a person to be brought up, surely you could at least give us a name for this woman of insanity? How is Bob supposedly supposed to "call out" anyone when you yourself make vague descriptions like "that one woman with the twitter account that said a thing".

 

[Aardvaarkman]

So, your example is from the 1960s. And she did not get the "free pass" that you claimed. She went to jail, and the media did not give her a free pass in any way.

As for your contention of feminists heralding her as a hero, that's also revisionist history. While some feminists may have approved of her actions, it was not a widely-held belief among feminists.

First off, I fail to see why the date invalidates this, is there an expiration date on valid examples of psychopathy within feminism if the beliefs are still ingrained in the ideology?

Second, you asked for a radical feminist who murdered someone for the sake of feminism.

But I was responding to a post that said "batshit crazy" feminists were constantly getting "free passes." Something that happened nearly 60 years hardly seems relevant to the current debate. There have been so many more anti-women murders and crimes using MRA-type rhetoric in more recent times.

And aside from the crimes, I don't see feminism getting this "free pass" that is claimed. In fact, the MRM shows that feminism is still under constant attack, and not getting this supposed free pass. It's such a whiny, useless argument.

Third, this is really a moot point considering Rodgers wasn't an MRA.

If it walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, then it's most likely a duck. Whether or not he was involved in any such organizations, he's spouting the same kind of rhetoric that MRAs use and harbor. Many of the MRAs cultivate the kind of crazy thinking he demonstrated.

One of the sites that you linked to showed this in its mission statement and articles. It has crazy rhetoric about how we are governed by feminists, and how men are suffering because of this supposed feminist takeover. Looking at the sites of the MRM, and the rhetoric employed, it's not hard to see them taking a person with insecurities about women, and turning them into a completely paranoid psychotic.

Article after article on those sites cultivate and nurture this unstable thinking with misinformation and emotional appeals.

Fourth, you're forgetting that Rodgers was mentally unstable, for your point on this point to be valid, you'd need to prove that his mental illness had nothing to do with his rampage, and had more to do with his ties to the MRM.

Why would I have to do that? That he is mentally unstable is undoubtably an issue, but it does not also preclude influence by MRA-style cognitive propaganda. Even if he never posted on an MRA site, doesn't mean he never read and MRA material or was influenced by it.

Elliot Rodgers, frequented no MRM websites, he neither followed nor conversed with anyone from the MRM, he did not identify with as an MRA, the distinction is clear.

How do you know that? Do you have a complete record of every website he ever visited, or every pamphlet he ever read?

Except it doesn't undermine anti-rape campaigns, much like the boy who cried wolf, false rape accusations not only destroy lives, they also devalue the actual legitimate rape claims by injecting an air of doubt into legitimate claims.

Except it did. The campaign was lifted from an anti-rape campaign that the police were running in the area at the same time. It used the same graphic design, and they even stole images used in the police campaign.

Telling people not to make false claims does not equate to telling people not to report legitimate ones, how you draw the relation is beyond me.

It's pretty obvious from looking at the posters. They are designed to intimidate women, and using the same graphics as the official police campaign, to send the message that women worry about reporting rape.

Given also that one of the stated goals of some of the MRM groups is to eliminate "rape hysteria" (really!?) - then it's pretty clear these groups aren't too keen on rapes being reported. They keep claiming that rapes are over-reported, but the evidence points much more strongly to rape being under-reported. By dissuading women from reporting rape, they are acting as rape apologists.

The problem with your point is that you take anyone decrying false rape accusations instantly as someone who is out to de-legitimize anti-rape campaigns.

Nope, that's not my point, as I wasn't talking about "anyone" - I was talking about the posters that went up in Edmonton, as I discussed above.

But there is definitely a big problem with putting "false rape accusations" as a top priority, when the underreporting of rape is the bigger problem. I'm not sure who is supporting false rape accusations, that they are trying to speak out against.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

The MRM has also distanced themselves from his views and mindset, i.e murder is acceptable. Secondly, Elliot Rodgers is not a MRA. He has been to no MRA events or sites in, to my knowldege, ever.

Distancing yourself from murder. Yeah, like I said, gutsy. But so many of the MRAs demonstrate the same psychological patterns in their rhetoric about women and society.

Oh and about that "crazy women don't get a free pass" thing?
http://www.policeone.com/edged-weapons/articles/7251371-Vt-woman-who-cut-officer-s-throat-acquitted-of-charges/

What the hell does that have to do with feminism? People get acquitted of crimes all the time, men and women. Where was the "batshit crazy" feminist rhetoric in her attack? And if she got a "free pass," she wouldn't have been charged in the first place.

Also, why did you change "crazy feminists" into "crazy women"? You do know that not all women are feminists, right?

 

[Chris Slime]

I'm just going to leave this here

Erin Pizzey after starting several women's domestic abuse shelters, started to work on a men's shelter and made claims women have the possibility to be just as violent as men. During work on this shelter she received death threats from feminists who also shot and killed her dog. She cancelled the shelter out of fear for her family's safety.

Now i don't know if this has been brought up yet as i can't be arsed to read ALL the comments. But i bring this up as not to just decry feminism. I actually personally support both feminism and men's rights. But i am very against feminists and men's right activists. When you make an ideology into a group you allow the short sighted extremists something to fight under hurting their cause. Either way nothing is scarier to any Social Justice Group than actually winning, since then they have to go away and without anything to fight for they cease to exist and have meaning.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Okay so they aren't officially "backed" by the government, but they do have politician's ears because the women's vote is an incredible valuable one.

Yeah, because all women are feminists. And I suppose that's why the anti-abortion movement and Conservative Christians are so powerful in modern American politics. Have you even been outside lately? If you think feminists "have politician's ears" - then you are really, really wrong.

The political lobbyists, who are mostly backed by large corporations, are the ones who have politician's ears. The idea that political discourse and government is controlled by feminists is just so completely absurd. It's an incredible distraction from real problems.

As the fucks I've run out of; it's obvious that I could type out reasons why the MRM is needed or why they have a right to speak and exist, and it wouldn't matter one bit.

For someone who's supposedly run out of fucks, you seem to be doing a lot of fuck-giving.

Some reasons why the MRM is needed might actually be helpful. But I think those reasons exist about as much as the feminist government-controlling cabal does.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Luckily, I've got a horse right here: http://www.avoiceformen.com/

All of those in the thread who want to know about the MHRM, read all of this. A Voice For Men is THE Men's rights activism site on the internet.

Right. So, if that is what represent the MRM - then straight from the horse's mouth, this basically proves everything negative that has been said about them. They are misleading, sensationalist, conspiracy-theorist, rape apologists, with a serious chip on their shoulders.

That site in particular (as well as many other sites and the movement at large) seem to share a lot in common with the Tea Party and other right-wing groups. That does make sense. The first time I was exposed to this MRA-style rhetoric (many years ago) was by delving into right-wing sites like little littlegreenfootballs.com and stormfront.com.

They seem very much to be ideologies built on paranoia, negativity and hatred.

 

[Lady Larunai]

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.

As I said both sides are stupid, pointing at the mistakes of ones opposing side when both lie does little to convince anyone that your own is the right choice

 

[THE_MUFFIN_MAN15]

I'm sorry, my brain had a temporary meltdown while it tried to process YOUR CIRCULAR FUCKING LOGIC.

"A few examples do not stand for the entire movement", and yet you base you're stance on THE ACTIONS OF A FEW MEMBERS, WHO ARE ACTIVELY CONDEMNED MY THE MAINSTREAM MOVEMENT.

*faceplam*

So, are you part of the "mainstream" movement? If so, you're doing a good job of demonstrating my point.

The reason you are having problems processing my "circular logic" is that it isn't circular logic, and you are lacking in reading comprehension. Yes, your few examples do not stand for the entire movement. They do not make the crazies no longer part of the movement. And how do we know who is an "official" spokesperson, anyway? I didn't think the movement was structured like that.

EDIT:

I have not read your particular examples (I've spent way too long in the past down such rabbit holes). But given your ranting, I wouldn't be surpassed that those you claim are reasonable and mainstream are actually quite kooky. Like all those people who recommended "intelligent" critics of Anita Sarkeesian, which upon viewing/reading turned out to be just as stupid as the others, just without the rape and death threats.

I have seen enough boards full of insane, embittered misogyny to know that "the crazies" aren't exactly a small minority in this movement.

But hey, if I get time after work, I may check your examples out.

Every movement has crazies, even feminism. It's easy to be a critic I guess, but less easy to actually contribute to a solution. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[beastro]

Married made fun of both genders chauvinism, the stereotypical and exaggerated Male idiocy of Al and the tepid Feminism of Peggy who wanted to bleed her husband dry with a view of him almost deserving it as she lazed about while giving him no respect for providing for their family, however ineptly.

 

[keserak]

Married made fun of both genders chauvinism, the stereotypical and exaggerated Male idiocy of Al and the tepid Feminism of Peggy who wanted to bleed her husband dry with a view of him almost deserving it as she lazed about while giving him no respect for providing for their family, however ineptly.

The character Peggy Bundy had nothing to do with feminism, wasn't a feminist, and couldn't care less about feminism. She was a lying, selfish jerk whose casual malice came close to justifying Al's horrid irresponsibility -- if it hadn't been for Al's neglect of his kids, it would have justified it. The quoted claim is both ridiculous and completely without any factual basis, and worse, it's the sort of "their side does it too!" strawman crap typical of a MRA-tainted discussion. We should eschew this sort of thing.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

Luckily, I've got a horse right here: http://www.avoiceformen.com/

All of those in the thread who want to know about the MHRM, read all of this. A Voice For Men is THE Men's rights activism site on the internet.

Right. So, if that is what represent the MRM - then straight from the horse's mouth, this basically proves everything negative that has been said about them. They are misleading, sensationalist, conspiracy-theorist, rape apologists, with a serious chip on their shoulders.

That site in particular (as well as many other sites and the movement at large) seem to share a lot in common with the Tea Party and other right-wing groups. That does make sense. The first time I was exposed to this MRA-style rhetoric (many years ago) was by delving into right-wing sites like little littlegreenfootballs.com and stormfront.com.

They seem very much to be ideologies built on paranoia, negativity and hatred.

Okay, how?

How are they rape-apologist? How are they sensationalist? How is that at all different from feminism?

YOU make these assertions. it is YOUR responsibility to back them up. Otherwise, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Every movement has crazies, even feminism. It's easy to be a critic I guess, but less easy to actually contribute to a solution. Wouldn't you agree?

Yes, but feminism has a viable quorum of moderates, and there is intelligent discussion.

With the MRM, it is almost impossible to find moderates, or intelligent discussion. The bulk of their rhetoric is based on conspiracy theories and lack of perspective.

As for solutions? The best idea would be to ignore the MRM. The "moderate" men are basically those who don't meet that description. Most normal men oppose mistreatment of both men and women, and don't get involved in such crazy theories as a feminist agenda controlling society. The solution is for ordinary men and women to talk about the issues, without getting involved in hate-based groups.

The most "reasonable" views of the MRM are already held by most men, so there's no need for them.

 

[Daemian Lucifer]

You know,that stupid one that claims to have PTSD from twitter and is accusing actual war vets of harassing her when they point out how insensitive that is?Why dont you use her as the norm for feminism then?

So if she was that prominent of a person to be brought up, surely you could at least give us a name for this woman of insanity? How is Bob supposedly supposed to "call out" anyone when you yourself make vague descriptions like "that one woman with the twitter account that said a thing".

Whats so vague about that?I googled "PTSD twitter",and the first link had her name:Melody Hensley.

 

[Daemian Lucifer]

Every movement has crazies, even feminism. It's easy to be a critic I guess, but less easy to actually contribute to a solution. Wouldn't you agree?

Yes, but feminism has a viable quorum of moderates, and there is intelligent discussion.

With the MRM, it is almost impossible to find moderates, or intelligent discussion. The bulk of their rhetoric is based on conspiracy theories and lack of perspective.

Oh yes,impossible.I mean just look how long it took me to go to her youtube page and paste it here:

https://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat

Over 5 seconds!Thats impossible!

 

[Aardvaarkman]

They seem very much to be ideologies built on paranoia, negativity and hatred.

Okay, how?

From "A Voice for Men's" mission statement: Educate men, women, girls and boys about the threats they face in feminist governance and to promote an end to that governance;

So, they're fighting something that is essentially a figment of their imagination and end it. That's pretty paranoid and negative.

How are they rape-apologist? How are they sensationalist?

From "A Voice for Men's" mission statement: Push for an end to rape hysteria, domestic violence hysteria and false allegations;

So, they want people to treat rape and domestic violence like it's not such a bad thing. Something we should be more chilled-out about, I guess? Interesting that they don't have a goal of encouraging less non-reporting of actual rape. Or that they don't have a goal of ending rape. Just the supposed "hysteria" over it.

Sensationalism: http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/human-rights-activism-is-now-a-blood-sport/

How is that at all different from feminism?

Feminists are largely in favor of reporting rapes, and ultimately of eliminating it altogether. And there's a lot more evidence gathered in support of mainstream feminist claims than there are of MRA ones.

You claim that this is what represents the "mainstream" MRM. It looks a lot more like a mirror-image of radical feminism than it looks like a counterpoint to mainstream feminism.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

With the MRM, it is almost impossible to find moderates, or intelligent discussion. The bulk of their rhetoric is based on conspiracy theories and lack of perspective.

Oh yes,impossible.I mean just look how long it took me to go to her youtube page and paste it here:

https://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat

Over 5 seconds!Thats impossible!

What makes her moderate, her discussion intelligent, or her representative of the MRM at large?

 

[Machine Man 1992]

They seem very much to be ideologies built on paranoia, negativity and hatred.

Okay, how?

From "A Voice for Men's" mission statement: Educate men, women, girls and boys about the threats they face in feminist governance and to promote an end to that governance;

So, they're fighting something that is essentially a figment of their imagination and end it. That's pretty paranoid and negative.

How are they rape-apologist? How are they sensationalist?

From "A Voice for Men's" mission statement: Push for an end to rape hysteria, domestic violence hysteria and false allegations;

So, they want people to treat rape and domestic violence like it's not such a bad thing. Something we should be more chilled-out about, I guess? Interesting that they don't have a goal of encouraging less non-reporting of actual rape.

Sensationalism: http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/human-rights-activism-is-now-a-blood-sport/

How is that at all different from feminism?

Feminists are largely in favor of reporting rapes. And there's a lot more evidence gathered in support of mainstream feminist claims than there are of MRA ones.

You claim that this is what represents the "mainstream" MRM. It looks a lot more like a mirror-image of radical feminism than it looks like a counterpoint to mainstream feminism.

Okay, it's obvious you didn't read anything so let's break it down; 1) I'll concede that they do in fact a fixation on blaming everything on feminism. That's one of the main foibles of the site. While feminism is responsible for many issues, they are not the root of all evil. That said, I find it rather interesting that anytime they try to have public forum or gathering, the feminists are there with their noise makers and their pulling of fire alarms and their threats of violence. And do we hear any condemnation from the supposedly "moderate" mainstream? No? Didn't think so. 2) You are not seriously denying the reality that rape has been sensationalized to hell and back. What A Voice For Men are aiming for is an end to that. It says so, RIGHT THERE; End rape HYSTERIA. How in holy mother of fuck do you get apologia from that?

 

[Machine Man 1992]

Every movement has crazies, even feminism. It's easy to be a critic I guess, but less easy to actually contribute to a solution. Wouldn't you agree?

The most "reasonable" views of the MRM are already held by most men, so there's no need for them.

The most "reasonable" views of feminism are already held by most women, so there's no need for them.