Finally got VirtualBox running on my Acer laptop. Had to disable VT-x acceleration and had to tweak the RAM settings of my VM, but it finally did work.
Banned from commenting for taking a middle of the road position (read: not entirely negative) about men's rights issues in response to a comment about how any men's rights advocate is automatically a bigot and a misogynist.
Oh well, I learned a lot in two weeks. Most of which I still agree with. Little soured now, though.
It's not an unreasonable heuristic to assume that the people who self-identify as "Men's Rights Activist" have a high (>75%) correlation with misogynists, given the environment (reddit).
It's similar to how, when I hear someone proclaim more and once that they "hate drama," upon our initial meeting, I immediately disengage myself from any social connection with them. I rely on a heuristic that has probably helped me avoid many disastrous situations (at least, I think so based on my recollection and cognitive biases).
If it's not unreasonable to assume that, then it's not unreasonable to assume that women who identify as feminist are misandrists.
Except that the population of people who self-identify as "feminists" don't really correlate highly with the population of misandrists (the latter group being extremely, laughably small in the grand scheme of this debate).
I don't know if you're being willfully obtuse or what, dude. It's pretty basic.
If it's not unreasonable to assume that, then it's not unreasonable to assume that women who identify as feminist are misandrists.
Like everything else, there are definitely extremists on both sides. The extremists are also often the most vocal, so they tend to color everyone on their respective side as being just as extreme.
There is a big difference between a men's right activist who complains about battered women shelters not allowing mothers to bring their teenage sons in with them only because they happen to be male vs. ones who think that the entire society is out to emasculate men in favor of some sort of gynocracy. Similarly, there is a big difference between a feminist who is in favor of better equality between the sexes vs. the classic cartoonish view of a man-hating bra-burning nutjob who would abort her baby if it happened to have a penis.
Of course. I was just talking about assumptions, not making any value judgments about people on either side.
Assumptions are by definition based on bias.
Yosho - not trying to pick a fight here, but I don't think I'm the one being obtuse.
The /r/mensrights community has lax moderation standards and as a result isn't a great representation of the ideology (which is fairly young and still maturing), but on the flip side, while /r/feminism mostly does a pretty great job at representing feminism as an ideology, they're not immune to bias and there is certainly a double standard going on using quiet moderation behind the scenes to prune viewpoints (which is one of the reasons /r/mensrights is overly open, as a pendulum swing away from that mentality.)
Your perspective on the correlation you're talking about is biased, not based on facts. Men's Rights as an ideology is not misogynistic, it's egalitarian, much like feminism is. In practice, though, there's a lot of misunderstanding and anger (in both camps).
This discussion reminds me of the second episode of Sunny in Philly where the guys were discussing whether the woman in the pro or anti abortion camps were better to chase after.
Defusing with humor is easy. Rectifying this crap is hard, especially when there's naturally a constant influx of new initiates and the whole conversation seems to reset on a weekly basis. The September That Never Ended as it applies to social justice.
The fact seems to be that human nature is tribal, and that means that as a group we're more interested in being divisive and angry across our favorite boundaries than conciliatory, especially given a mostly anonymous sounding board against a bunch of anonymous "malefactors". Sucks.
MATATAT - in my case I'm talking about an entire online community labeled "Feminists" and the way it's actually run, vs an entire online community labeled "MRAs" and how they actually run. It's not down to individuals in that case. It's not so much about labeling as ideology and messaging and honesty.
But in the case of individuals: it certainly doesn't take much for a few angry individuals to derail a whole lot of progress towards understanding and reconciliation. Unfortunately that has as much to do with how the communities weight those individuals as it has to do with the instigators themselves.
Well then it sounds like you're stepping into the wolves den and provoking them. If the moderators have an agenda then you won't win and probably just shouldn't go there in the first place. It doesn't sound like anything good comes out of going there unless you maybe share similar opinions. Just speculating as I have zero interest in listening to doofuses argue about what they perceive as unjust treatment, so I really have no idea what it's like there except for your description.
You were the one who said they had an agenda in "Men's rights" (or women's rights depending on side I guess). If anything I'm taking your opinion as advice. If you went in there to offer an opinion and they are as driven as you say then I don't give a shit you were offended. You touched the burner then got huffy about it. I'm dismissive because they didn't want to hear your opinion so it's not worth posting there.
Of course. I was just talking about assumptions, not making any value judgments about people on either side.
Assumptions are by definition based on bias.
Assumptions are a combination of cognitive and cultural bias, mixed with heuristics (like the ones I mentioned above). If you're passing by a homeless dude on the street and he's raving and swinging a knife around wildly, would you engage him in a conversation about tax policy? I know this is a bit ad absurdum, but my point is that we make assumptions about strangers all the time, and that they're at least partially based on evidence (even if that evidence is anecdotal and laced with confirmation bias).
The /r/mensrights community has lax moderation standards and as a result isn't a great representation of the ideology (which is fairly young and still maturing)
Ok. What, in your opinion, are the major tenets of this ideology? How much do you, personally, self-identify with those tenets?
EDIT: I see MRA people as shrill, whiney men who are ultimately ineffectual. The issue I have with them is that they obscure and pull attention from the people who are actively harming women (and men), many of them far-right groups that (while they share some ideology with MRAs) do much more than harass people on the Internet.
Here's an imperfect but decent summation, which I •mostly• agree with. I'm not sure how my level of identification with any of this is even slightly relevant unless your goal is flaming.
I also happen to agree with •most• of feminism. What I have a huge problem with are disingenuous, manipulative, dishonest people who drive division and misunderstanding and spite.
I didn't set out to create an "Ideology A is superior to Ideology B" thread. It seems like you guys want to steer it that way and I'm not interested in that.
based on a growing body of evidence that the human rights of males are being systematically removed by activists, lobbyists, politicians and academicians who cling to a misguided and wrongheaded belief that masculinity is fundamentally violent or harmful
And:
The fact of men’s second-class status within western society is demonstrated by a number of well known, but ignored facts
The rest isn't as 1000% insane as other articles I've read that start with those premises, but it's still predicated on ideas that are completely, verifiably false. If men are second class citizens, then women are the first class citizens. That's why the majority of political and social leaders are women. That's why women control the majority of wealth in the country, and the world. That's why women are constantly legislating to prevent men's access to contraceptives, control over their reproductive rights, etc.
All the MRA literature I've read -- if you want to refer to blog screeds as literature -- conveniently ignores that most of the things they're citing as infractions of their rights are rooted in prejudice regarding women. Men can't cry, because only bitches cry. Women are expected to provide child care, men are often denied custody. Women are considered weak and vulnerable, only men are drafted. These are things the average, sensical feminist is already against.
MRA arguments seek to convince you that women are the oppressors when, in fact, it's more about a bunch of non-traditionally masculine men (nerds) being oppressed by the same society that oppresses women, and black people, and anyone who is different. Instead of these men choosing the proper target for their anger, they choose the most convenient one.
Like I said I don't agree with all of it. I'd say that men are certainly systematically discriminated in specific scenarios, but not second class citizens. And that these issues are very often glossed over by feminists in practice if not ideology, dismissed as "part of the patriarchy" or even, unfortunately "as what men deserve for being oppressors." Obviously neither of these things are part of the feminist ideology but they occur in practice enough to comment on.
And whether or not you agree that we're living in a patriarchy (which I do agree with), it's not enough to simply say that "well this is because of prejudice against women, so feminism" and then end the conversation. That's why these "screeds" exist.
And there is certainly a subculture of victimhood within feminism that sometimes (not always, not often, but sometimes) demonstrably exceeds the reality of a situation (but of course any such "demonstration" is going to be largely subjective so we could argue about them endlessly.)
One major issue I have with this particular blog article is that it paints Men's Rights as primarily a reaction to contemporary feminism, which it really isn't, at least not wholly.
Feminism absolutely needs to exist. There are some BIG problems. Men's Rights as a whole isn't really an argument against feminism as it's almost universally cast by.. basically everybody who's not an MRA. It's a gap filling ideology for those gender issues that feminism glosses over with platitudes (and an occasional counterpoint to some of the more problematic areas of radical feminism.)
I don't agree at all that "MRA arguments seek to convince you that women are the oppressors." That's a trite and easy dismissal. I agree that many people who self identify as MRAs say things like that (and often!), but if that's your standard for judging an ideology, then every ideology on the planet is subject to criticism based on the ramblings of the dumbest, meanest adherent.
I think that there are some strong biases in feminism against men generally instead of simply against issues of gender discrimination or patriarchal institutions, as well as issues for men that are created by the patriarchy, but still worth discussing, and that if feminism is going to largely gloss them over, then there's gotta be a safe space to go discuss those issues and reach a consensus outside of feminism.
The Men's Rights movement is young and chaotic and not well defined, but it's a start (one that needs a lot of work.)
Ultimately social justice should be a single ideology with shared goals and non-exclusive labeling, but that's a long ways off at the rate things are going.
You can say it's trite and easy, but I have never seen an MRA article present their ideology as anything other than "we are being oppressed by feminists." This includes the one you just linked. As if all the mean feminists are waiting at the sidelines to to cackle and holler at men who've been raped, for example, and not the other way around: men being afraid to report rape largely because of a culture that will label them a "faggot."
I mean, come on, that thing is your example of a rational breakdown of MRA? The article that says their ideology is "non-political," thus proving they don't know the definition of "ideology," "political," or both.
You can say it's trite and easy, but I have never seen an MRA article present their ideology as anything other than "we are being oppressed by feminists." This includes the one you just linked. As if all the mean feminists are waiting at the sidelines to to cackle and holler at men who've been raped, for example, and not the other way around: men being afraid to report rape largely because of a culture that will label them a "faggot."
I mean, come on, that thing is your example of a rational breakdown of MRA? The article that says their ideology is "non-political," thus proving they don't know the definition of "ideology," "political," or both.
You're reading it with a chip on your shoulder, plain and simple.
The article points out a few specific instances in which feminism tries to shame men and boys simply for being men and boys. I don't think that's beyond the pale. It also talks about how traditional gender rules are negative for men (which yeah, feminists do tend to scoff at or dismiss, whether you admit it or not.)
I do agree that saying "men are second class citizens" is silly, but I don't agree that you can dismiss all of the issues subsequently raised by the article based on that sentence.
johndis, that's very useful.
The simple fact that these issues can't be discussed without a lot of cat-calling and derision is a very large part of the reason that MRAs exist in the first place.
And for the record, I don't post regularly in any of these communities. I more or less walk between the two for the last couple of weeks and try to figure the whole thing out.
There's a few neat subs on reddit like "femraddebates" that are pretty moderate and interesting, but not frequently updated and prone to beat the same issues to death, so they're only really good for a read once or twice a month if that.
And Dave, I'm not really trying to defend the specific article. I qualified it when I posted it because it's just a starting point. Yeah, it's got flaws. I wouldn't even be able to begin to guess what the author meant by "non-political".
Part of the problem in discussing this topic is that the ideology isn't really mature, so an article like this is a 10,000 foot view (with a lot of problems). In order to get into the nuts and bolts, you have to get super specific and spend a couple of hours defining things carefully because of the loaded nature of the topic. Another reason for a lot of knee-jerk reactions and anger. It's very very very easy to be misunderstood and very very frustrating to have to write in paragraphs where sentences should do.
Comments
Banned from commenting for taking a middle of the road position (read: not entirely negative) about men's rights issues in response to a comment about how any men's rights advocate is automatically a bigot and a misogynist.
Oh well, I learned a lot in two weeks. Most of which I still agree with. Little soured now, though.
It's similar to how, when I hear someone proclaim more and once that they "hate drama," upon our initial meeting, I immediately disengage myself from any social connection with them. I rely on a heuristic that has probably helped me avoid many disastrous situations (at least, I think so based on my recollection and cognitive biases).
I don't know if you're being willfully obtuse or what, dude. It's pretty basic.
There is a big difference between a men's right activist who complains about battered women shelters not allowing mothers to bring their teenage sons in with them only because they happen to be male vs. ones who think that the entire society is out to emasculate men in favor of some sort of gynocracy. Similarly, there is a big difference between a feminist who is in favor of better equality between the sexes vs. the classic cartoonish view of a man-hating bra-burning nutjob who would abort her baby if it happened to have a penis.
Assumptions are by definition based on bias.
Yosho - not trying to pick a fight here, but I don't think I'm the one being obtuse.
The /r/mensrights community has lax moderation standards and as a result isn't a great representation of the ideology (which is fairly young and still maturing), but on the flip side, while /r/feminism mostly does a pretty great job at representing feminism as an ideology, they're not immune to bias and there is certainly a double standard going on using quiet moderation behind the scenes to prune viewpoints (which is one of the reasons /r/mensrights is overly open, as a pendulum swing away from that mentality.)
Your perspective on the correlation you're talking about is biased, not based on facts. Men's Rights as an ideology is not misogynistic, it's egalitarian, much like feminism is. In practice, though, there's a lot of misunderstanding and anger (in both camps).
Defusing with humor is easy. Rectifying this crap is hard, especially when there's naturally a constant influx of new initiates and the whole conversation seems to reset on a weekly basis. The September That Never Ended as it applies to social justice.
The fact seems to be that human nature is tribal, and that means that as a group we're more interested in being divisive and angry across our favorite boundaries than conciliatory, especially given a mostly anonymous sounding board against a bunch of anonymous "malefactors". Sucks.
By the way, this seems to be a pretty accurate portrayal of non-MRAs' views and experience of that "movement." I would recommend reading through it a few times and letting it sink in.
EDIT: I see MRA people as shrill, whiney men who are ultimately ineffectual. The issue I have with them is that they obscure and pull attention from the people who are actively harming women (and men), many of them far-right groups that (while they share some ideology with MRAs) do much more than harass people on the Internet.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/understanding-the-mens-rights-movement/
I also happen to agree with •most• of feminism. What I have a huge problem with are disingenuous, manipulative, dishonest people who drive division and misunderstanding and spite.
I didn't set out to create an "Ideology A is superior to Ideology B" thread. It seems like you guys want to steer it that way and I'm not interested in that.
All the MRA literature I've read -- if you want to refer to blog screeds as literature -- conveniently ignores that most of the things they're citing as infractions of their rights are rooted in prejudice regarding women. Men can't cry, because only bitches cry. Women are expected to provide child care, men are often denied custody. Women are considered weak and vulnerable, only men are drafted. These are things the average, sensical feminist is already against.
MRA arguments seek to convince you that women are the oppressors when, in fact, it's more about a bunch of non-traditionally masculine men (nerds) being oppressed by the same society that oppresses women, and black people, and anyone who is different. Instead of these men choosing the proper target for their anger, they choose the most convenient one.
And whether or not you agree that we're living in a patriarchy (which I do agree with), it's not enough to simply say that "well this is because of prejudice against women, so feminism" and then end the conversation. That's why these "screeds" exist.
And there is certainly a subculture of victimhood within feminism that sometimes (not always, not often, but sometimes) demonstrably exceeds the reality of a situation (but of course any such "demonstration" is going to be largely subjective so we could argue about them endlessly.)
One major issue I have with this particular blog article is that it paints Men's Rights as primarily a reaction to contemporary feminism, which it really isn't, at least not wholly.
Feminism absolutely needs to exist. There are some BIG problems. Men's Rights as a whole isn't really an argument against feminism as it's almost universally cast by.. basically everybody who's not an MRA. It's a gap filling ideology for those gender issues that feminism glosses over with platitudes (and an occasional counterpoint to some of the more problematic areas of radical feminism.)
I don't agree at all that "MRA arguments seek to convince you that women are the oppressors." That's a trite and easy dismissal. I agree that many people who self identify as MRAs say things like that (and often!), but if that's your standard for judging an ideology, then every ideology on the planet is subject to criticism based on the ramblings of the dumbest, meanest adherent.
I think that there are some strong biases in feminism against men generally instead of simply against issues of gender discrimination or patriarchal institutions, as well as issues for men that are created by the patriarchy, but still worth discussing, and that if feminism is going to largely gloss them over, then there's gotta be a safe space to go discuss those issues and reach a consensus outside of feminism.
The Men's Rights movement is young and chaotic and not well defined, but it's a start (one that needs a lot of work.)
Ultimately social justice should be a single ideology with shared goals and non-exclusive labeling, but that's a long ways off at the rate things are going.
I mean, come on, that thing is your example of a rational breakdown of MRA? The article that says their ideology is "non-political," thus proving they don't know the definition of "ideology," "political," or both.
The article points out a few specific instances in which feminism tries to shame men and boys simply for being men and boys. I don't think that's beyond the pale. It also talks about how traditional gender rules are negative for men (which yeah, feminists do tend to scoff at or dismiss, whether you admit it or not.)
I do agree that saying "men are second class citizens" is silly, but I don't agree that you can dismiss all of the issues subsequently raised by the article based on that sentence.
johndis, that's very useful.
The simple fact that these issues can't be discussed without a lot of cat-calling and derision is a very large part of the reason that MRAs exist in the first place.
And for the record, I don't post regularly in any of these communities. I more or less walk between the two for the last couple of weeks and try to figure the whole thing out.
There's a few neat subs on reddit like "femraddebates" that are pretty moderate and interesting, but not frequently updated and prone to beat the same issues to death, so they're only really good for a read once or twice a month if that.
And Dave, I'm not really trying to defend the specific article. I qualified it when I posted it because it's just a starting point. Yeah, it's got flaws. I wouldn't even be able to begin to guess what the author meant by "non-political".
Part of the problem in discussing this topic is that the ideology isn't really mature, so an article like this is a 10,000 foot view (with a lot of problems). In order to get into the nuts and bolts, you have to get super specific and spend a couple of hours defining things carefully because of the loaded nature of the topic. Another reason for a lot of knee-jerk reactions and anger. It's very very very easy to be misunderstood and very very frustrating to have to write in paragraphs where sentences should do.