The Men's Rights Movement

[Linus]

I stumbled upon some MRM texts some years ago, articles mainly focused on "game" if I remember correctly.

They seemed to me a rather simple reaction to feminism (et al.) because these fellows seemed convinced that inherent to being a Manly Man is being an uncaring a-hole.

Now, I can empathise with the notion that men's identity is unstable these days, but I'm pretty sure you can be manly and avoid being a jerk at the same time.

(NB: The above may be an incorrect conception of MGM as a whole. The blogs seemed popular enough though.)

[Karl Henning]

Anyone who feels aggrieved can find some InterWebs place for validation . . . .

[Ken B]

Anyone who feels aggrieved can find some InterWebs place for validation . . . .

Not those of us aggrieved at the lack of grievance InterWebs for the lack of grievance InterWebs, no sirree bob.

[Rinaldo]

Now, I can empathise with the notion that men's identity is unstable these days, but I'm pretty sure you can be manly and avoid being a jerk at the same time.

Absolutely. And it's unstable in a good way - the times when identity was defined by sex are thankfully rolling over.

[Daverz]

But he has a point.

"I don't see the problem, therefore there is no problem" is not a point, it's a statement of willful cluelessness.

  Just like the insistence on seeing the death by cops in Ferguson and NYC as racism derails examination of the real problem, out of control policing and the systemic biases that allow it to be ignored and covered up....something that impacts all parts of the community, not just blacks.

Police violence and impunity impacts the whole community, though not anything near equally, and the whole community does not see it as a problem equally.  The numbers split something like 70% of the black people seeing it as a problem and 30% of non-black people seeing it as a problem.     

[Ken B]

Police violence and impunity impacts the whole community, though not anything near equally, and the whole community does not see it as a problem equally.  The numbers split something like 70% of the black people seeing it as a problem and 30% of non-black people seeing it as a problem.   

I won't debate exact numbers; the general point is right. But it is still wrong to blame it on police racism, and hence to discuss it in such terms.

Due to circumstance the police do not control they are intruding obnoxiously more into the life of blacks than whites. As one example of how, I gave a link a while back about the creeping return of "debtor's prison". Not for money owed to banks or doctors, who need to sue you,  but for for money owed to governments. They can and will take direct action against you.  This can result in a lot of police intrusion: garnishing wages, seizing homes, suspended licenses,  etc.

There are other examples.

So the problems Jeffrey identifies are manifested first and worst to the poor, and thus in higher proportion to blacks.

[kishnevi]

"I don't see the problem, therefore there is no problem" is not a point, it's a statement of willful cluelessness.

Police violence and impunity impacts the whole community, though not anything near equally, and the whole community does not see it as a problem equally.  The numbers split something like 70% of the black people seeing it as a problem and 30% of non-black people seeing it as a problem.   

What he said was, remove the filter that makes people see things as a specific -ism, and the problem resolves into a problem that has an effect on everyone.  Curb police violence, and everyone gains.  But only concentrate on police violence against one section of the community, and you end up not solving the problem.

[North Star]

Just a general opinion that I've probably already said, but wouldn't it be better if both feminism and MRM didn't exist? And just focus on human issues?

So, for instance, instead of campaigning for having more woman politicians, people should be campaigning for having more politicians? 

What he said was, remove the filter that makes people see things as a specific -ism, and the problem resolves into a problem that has an effect on everyone.  Curb police violence, and everyone gains.  But only concentrate on police violence against one section of the community, and you end up not solving the problem.

How does police violence connect to mens' right movement and feminism? I take it that you're not saying that feminism was never needed in the first place.

[kishnevi]

So, for instance, instead of campaigning for having more woman politicians, people should be campaigning for having more politicians? 

In that instance, get rid of politicians as much as possible.  Then it will not matter what the ratio of male to female will be.

How does police violence connect to mens' right movement and feminism? I take it that you're not saying that feminism was never needed in the first place.

I chose police violence as something off topic to illustrate the point.
There was a time and place for feminism.  That time ended a couple of decades ago, when women started entering the work force as a normal proposition.  The market decided the question for everyone.

There may be problems specifically harming women.  But most of them when examined turn out to be problems for everyone, and to insist on seeing them as hurting only women merely keeps them from being solved.

For instance, the so-called rape culture is not the problem.  The problem is the modern sex culture, which presumes every interaction between men and women is sexual in nature, and that all males want sex, and all women are willing to accommodate them given the right circumstances, and which negates the idea that non sexual relationships should be the standard.  Ironically, we have returned to medieval ideas of women as sexual lures, but without the contrasting idea of chastity.   So we are actually worse off.  The rape culture, to the extent it is a real thing, is an outgrowth of this.  Young males are taught the default answer is Yes, and have a hard time adjusting to the fact that the default is actually No.

[ibanezmonster]

Local area man thinks feminism unnecessary.  News at 11.

Oh, that was a thoughtful contribution. I noticed you singled out feminism, when I included MRM in that as well. Yeah, that's totally honest.

So, for instance, instead of campaigning for having more woman politicians, people should be campaigning for having more politicians? 

Or maybe... get good politicians, regardless of their gender? A good politician can serve the interest of many different groups of people. Who cares if 90% of the politicians in the country are male or female, as long as they aren't terrrrrrrrrrrible (I guess regular terrible is the most you can ask for politicians).

I stumbled upon some MRM texts some years ago, articles mainly focused on "game" if I remember correctly.

They seemed to me a rather simple reaction to feminism (et al.) because these fellows seemed convinced that inherent to being a Manly Man is being an uncaring a-hole.

Now, I can empathise with the notion that men's identity is unstable these days, but I'm pretty sure you can be manly and avoid being a jerk at the same time.

(NB: The above may be an incorrect conception of MGM as a whole. The blogs seemed popular enough though.)

That sounds like PUA stuff. For some reason they tend to get confused a lot with MRM.

"keep privelege unchecked" lol... there's a catchphrase I hear about a lot now, the wonderful imaginary "privilege."
I haven't read too much on MRM, but most of these on the list seem a bit irrelevant...
"social stigma around black fatherhood?" What type of stigma?
"Campaign to include trans men?" Do they not accept them already? (idk)
"Using f*ggot to emasculate men who aren't part of their cause-" I seriously doubt this is a common thing, if not, I'd like to see a source. If you take offense to that, I wonder how you made it through grade school. "Support male domestic abuse victims unless it's to derail a thread about female domestic abuse victims." I'm sure they support them, but if they don't do it enough, idk, I don't read MRM forums.
"not campaign more for gay men's rights" probably is the best point on here.


But what is so bad about a straight white men's activist group if there are gay rights activists, feminists, NAACP, and whatever list of activists you can think of? It is unfortunate that people divide themselves like this, but if society is going to be divisive, why shouldn't everyone have their own little groups?

[ibanezmonster]

I saw this when looking at the first page:

This MRA crap is really pathetic.  Men have been the "top dogs" for so long that some of them just can't stand to see their status reduced a little; those men are so weak in their self-esteem.

I know, right. Psshhh I wasn't really born in the late 1980's, it was really the 1700's and I had centuries of oppressing women under my belt, so their revenge is justified. 

[North Star]

Or maybe... get good politicians, regardless of their gender? A good politician can serve the interest of many different groups of people. Who cares if 90% of the politicians in the country are male or female, as long as they aren't terrrrrrrrrrrible (I guess regular terrible is the most you can ask for politicians).

So, you think that if 90% of the politicians are male (or female, or white, or whatever), this is just because the males (or female, or white, or whatever) are better politicians? Statistically this isn't a likely scenario, and nudging the society to balance seems reasonable. It's also been studied (I don't remember where I saw the study, it might have been a Finnish, British or American one) that companies with a significant number of women on their boards tend to do better than those with few (or no) women on their board.
It's curious that one living in the 'melting pot' can think that 50% of the population doesn't need representation in politics (or in the corporate world).
And it's not only women (or other minorities) advancing their rights that matters, society benefits from having diverse ideas, and that requires diversity.

[Mirror Image]

So, you think that if 90% of the politicians are male (or female, or white, or whatever), this is just because the males (or female, or white, or whatever) are better politicians? Statistically this isn't a likely scenario, and nudging the society to balance seems reasonable. It's also been studied (I don't remember where I saw the study, it might have been a Finnish, British or American one) that companies with a significant number of women on their boards tend to do better than those with few (or no) women on their board.
It's curious that one living in the 'melting pot' can think that 50% of the population doesn't need representation in politics (or in the corporate world).
It's not about the women (or other minorities) advancing their rights that matters in the end so much, when there is equality. Politicians and corporate leaders need ideas, and to have many and diverse ideas, you need diversity.

+ 1

[Ken B]

In that instance, get rid of politicians as much as possible.  Then it will not matter what the ratio of male to female will be. :PI chose police violence as something off topic to illustrate the point.
There was a time and place for feminism.  That time ended a couple of decades ago, when women started entering the work force as a normal proposition.  The market decided the question for everyone.

There may be problems specifically harming women.  But most of them when examined turn out to be problems for everyone, and to insist on seeing them as hurting only women merely keeps them from being solved.

For instance, the so-called rape culture is not the problem.  The problem is the modern sex culture, which presumes every interaction between men and women is sexual in nature, and that all males want sex, and all women are willing to accommodate them given the right circumstances, and which negates the idea that non sexual relationships should be the standard.  Ironically, we have returned to medieval ideas of women as sexual lures, but without the contrasting idea of chastity.   So we are actually worse off.  The rape culture, to the extent it is a real thing, is an outgrowth of this.  Young males are taught the default answer is Yes, and have a hard time adjusting to the fact that the default is actually No.

Actually there is a rape culture. It thrives under ISIS and the taliban. It is not the culture most of those yelling about rape culture oppose however.

[Cosi bel do]

So, you think that if 90% of the politicians are male (or female, or white, or whatever), this is just because the males (or female, or white, or whatever) are better politicians? Statistically this isn't a likely scenario, and nudging the society to balance seems reasonable. It's also been studied (I don't remember where I saw the study, it might have been a Finnish, British or American one) that companies with a significant number of women on their boards tend to do better than those with few (or no) women on their board.
It's curious that one living in the 'melting pot' can think that 50% of the population doesn't need representation in politics (or in the corporate world).
It's not about the women (or other minorities) advancing their rights that matters in the end so much, when there is equality. Politicians and corporate leaders need ideas, and to have many and diverse ideas, you need diversity.

I agree with most of your arguments, except it is a matter of equality, and not so much of diversity (diversity being ambigous notion in general). Because even if businesses had better results without women on their boards (or while discriminating other categories according to their sex, their skin color, their lifestyle or whatever), it would not make it right.

[North Star]

I agree with most of your arguments, except it is a matter of equality, and not so much of diversity (diversity being ambigous notion in general). Because even if businesses had better results without women on their boards (or while discriminating other categories according to their sex, their skin color, their lifestyle or whatever), it would not make it right.

Diversity isn't that ambiguous, but I agree that in general discrimination of a group of people is wrong regardless of its financial implications, and ought to have worded the earlier post better.

[ibanezmonster]

So, you think that if 90% of the politicians are male (or female, or white, or whatever), this is just because the males (or female, or white, or whatever) are better politicians? Statistically this isn't a likely scenario, and nudging the society to balance seems reasonable. It's also been studied (I don't remember where I saw the study, it might have been a Finnish, British or American one) that companies with a significant number of women on their boards tend to do better than those with few (or no) women on their board.
It's curious that one living in the 'melting pot' can think that 50% of the population doesn't need representation in politics (or in the corporate world).
And it's not only women (or other minorities) advancing their rights that matters, society benefits from having diverse ideas, and that requires diversity.

Although unfortunately I can't find where I saw this information a long time ago (if I'm wrong about this, then my bad), I've heard of colleges in California which do not have affirmative action and as a result, have a disproportionate amount of Asian students, who are the least common minority. I believe there was a larger percent of Asian people than white people in that school- all that tells me is that white people need to work harder to get into that school. Or maybe they just aren't interested in attending that school.

If 90% of politicians/IT workers/whatever are male in whatever field, maybe it would be better to find out if women are just less interested or what, and if they leave to find out why they left the field. Would be better than automatically assuming, like some people do, that it's the evil white man holding them back.

[Rinaldo]

If 90% of politicians/IT workers/whatever are male in whatever field, maybe it would be better to find out if women are just less interested or what, and if they leave to find out why they left the field. Would be better than automatically assuming, like some people do, that it's the evil white man holding them back.

The exact opposite thing happens again and again: we men automatically assume "women are not interested" and we don't want to bother ourselves with wrongs that are still very much imbued in certain fields.

[ibanezmonster]

The exact opposite thing happens again and again: we men automatically assume "women are not interested" and we don't want to bother ourselves with wrongs that are still very much imbued in certain fields.

And what "wrongs" are these? So, specifically, how are women routinely negatively discriminated in certain fields in a way that men aren't? Certainly not life-threatening stuff, anyways:

There were 4,101 fatal work injuries among men in 2013 compared with 4,277 in 2012, and fatal injuries among women were lower by 14 percent in 2013 to 302 from 351 in 2012.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf

Or is it the cartoon women shirts?

[ibanezmonster]

I would highly recommend watching the many youtube videos by bane666au and TheAmazingAtheist and their thoughts on feminism and the difference between that and egalitarianism.