# Men's Rights Activists



## QI 541 (Nov 29, 2015)

I find all of the disproportionate hate MRAs get compared to feminists hilarious when they're practically the same thing.


Supervisor Edit: This thread is a split off from the Feminism thread. See here https://kiwifarms.net/threads/mens-rights-activists.14950/#post-1120228 for the intended OP.


----------



## Ahffline (Nov 29, 2015)

raymond said:


> I find all of the disproportionate hate MRAs get compared to feminists hilarious when they're practically the same thing.



Unfortunately, I think a fair amount of MRA hate stems from a knee-jerk reaction against the fact that the more extreme members of the movement essentially want to put women "back in the kitchen" and redefine the female identity solely on the basis of wife/motherhood, just as the common knee-jerk reaction to feminism is that it wants to destroy men. Of course, both these reactions are grounded in a kernel of truth - idiots on the extreme fringes of both movements seem to want exactly that to happen - and the more sensible, moderate elements in both movements get drowned out by the idiocy.


----------



## Alberto Balsalm (Nov 29, 2015)

MRAs are less widely-accepted than feminists because they don't _do _anything, really. From the start of the women's suffrage movement in the Anglosphere to the present, the feminist movement has influenced a lot of legislation and social reforms on gender equality, regardless of how one might think about the state of the label today. MRAs, despite being around in some form for about 40 years, have little to nothing to show for it.


----------



## QI 541 (Nov 29, 2015)

Alberto Balsalm said:


> MRAs are less widely-accepted than feminists because they don't _do _anything, really.



Honestly, I think that would have made them more accepted.  If Islam started changing laws in the West, the backlash is going to be ridiculous.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Nov 29, 2015)

raymond said:


> Honestly, I think that would have made them more accepted.  If Islam started changing laws in the West, the backlash is going to be ridiculous.


Same with feminism. Once the Muslims completely override western culture then we will love them just like we love the feminists


----------



## Alberto Balsalm (Nov 29, 2015)

raymond said:


> Honestly, I think that would have made them more accepted.  If Islam started changing laws in the West, the backlash is going to be ridiculous.


Do you think feminists just stormed in one day, staged a coup, and started passing laws? The reason they managed to create change in the first place is that activists gradually swayed public opinion in favor of certain reforms.


----------



## QI 541 (Nov 29, 2015)

Alberto Balsalm said:


> Do you think feminists just stormed in one day, staged a coup, and started passing laws? The reason they managed to create change in the first place is that activists gradually swayed public opinion in favor of certain reforms.



That would be relevant if we were comparing MRAs to 1960s feminists.  But we're comparing them with 2015 feminists, who last I checked, were whining to the UN because some people said mean things to them on the internet.


----------



## Rin (Nov 29, 2015)

raymond said:


> That would be relevant if we were comparing MRAs to 1960s feminists.  But we're comparing them with 2015 feminists, who last I checked, were whining to the UN because some people said mean things to them on the internet.


Basically, at least at one point the feminist movement was actually successful and made important changes.  The MRA movement has never done that.  Thus it has more general credibility.


----------



## Alberto Balsalm (Nov 29, 2015)

Alberto Balsalm said:


> Do you think feminists just stormed in one day, staged a coup, and started passing laws? The reason they managed to create change in the first place is that activists gradually swayed public opinion in favor of certain reforms.








@PeteyCoffee, could you elaborate on your disagreement here?



KingQueen said:


> Also "disproportionate hate" is laughable. MRAs get tweets that say "die cis scum". How awful for them.



I don't think it was implied that MRAs face hate _speech _or hate _crimes_, just a lot of negative sentiment.


----------



## KingQueen (Nov 30, 2015)

TheProdigalStunna said:


> cuz its true


I've seen 3 kinds of MRAs:
 - loveshy incels (and their coverup counterpart Sensitive Men)
 - mandudebro who thinks  loving bacon and violence are innate masculine traits (and their coverup counterpart Intellectual Masculinity)
 - regular dudes who actually want equality and think  that Men's Rights sounds good because they saw it on the internet once without knowing much about actual MRAs

But I don't know who brought up MRAs in a thread about Feminism anyway.


----------



## PeteyCoffee (Nov 30, 2015)

KingQueen said:


> I've seen 3 kinds of MRAs:
> - loveshy incels (and their coverup counterpart Sensitive Men)
> - mandudebro who thinks  loving bacon and violence are innate masculine traits (and their coverup counterpart Intellectual Masculinity)
> - regular dudes who actually want equality and think  that Men's Rights sounds good because they saw it on the internet once without knowing much about actual MRAs
> ...


I've seen 3 kinds of feminists...


----------



## AP 297 (Nov 30, 2015)

PeteyCoffee said:


> I've seen 3 kinds of feminists...



List them. You came into this thread, made incoherent arguments and did everything to get people worked up over you to the point that you are the main topic of conversation.

List them and state your case.


----------



## PeteyCoffee (Nov 30, 2015)

SunLightStreak said:


> List them. You came into this thread, made incoherent arguments and did everything to get people worked up over you to the point that you are the main topic of conversation.
> 
> List them and state your case.


I've seen 3 kinds of MRAs Feminists:
- loveshy incels (and their coverup counterpart Sensitive Men Women)
- mandudebro progressive chick who thinks loving bacon makeup and violence brow-beating are innate masculine feminine traits (and their coverup counterpart Intellectual Masculinity Femininity)
- regular dudes people who actually want equality and think that Men's Rights Feminism sounds good because they saw it on the internet once without knowing much about actual MRAs Feminists

It doesn't make sense that someone would bring up MRAs in a thread about the female counterpart?


----------



## AP 297 (Nov 30, 2015)

PeteyCoffee said:


> I've seen 3 kinds of MRAs Feminists:
> - loveshy incels (and their coverup counterpart Sensitive Men Women)
> - mandudebro progressive chick who thinks loving bacon makeup and violence brow-beating are innate masculine feminine traits (and their coverup counterpart Intellectual Masculinity Femininity)
> - regular dudes people who actually want equality and think that Men's Rights Feminism sounds good because they saw it on the internet once without knowing much about actual MRAs Feminists
> ...



So you are arguing they are simply different sides of the same coin, then?


----------



## Vitriol (Nov 30, 2015)

As the thread on Feminism has predictably derailed into discussion of their counterpart the MRA movement I think it will be more productive to separate the discussions on the two movements. This should allow those who wish to discuss feminine issues, how they are being addressed and the drama associated with feminism as a movement and  those who are interested in discussing masculine issues, how they are being addressed, and problems within that movement to do so without stepping all over each others toes.

The wiki article, while showing some signs of bias in its introduction is largely quite good at  summarising the movement for those who are unaware. Here are the relevant sections:


Spoiler: Brief summary of the movement from wiki






> *Movement[edit]*
> The modern men's rights movement emerged from the men's liberation movement, which appeared in the first half of the 1970s when some thinkers began to study feminist ideas and politics.[15][16] The men's liberation movement acknowledged men's institutional power while critically examining the costs of traditional masculinity.[15] In the late 1970s, the men's liberation movement split into two separate strands with opposing views: the pro-feminist men's movement and the anti-feminist men's rights movement.[15] Men's rights activists have rejected feminist principles and focused on areas in which they believe men are disadvantaged, oppressed, or discriminated against.[15][16][17] In the 1980s and 90s, men's rights activists opposed societal changes sought by feminists and defended the traditional gender order in the family, schools and the workplace.[18] Men's rights activists see men as an oppressed group[19][20][21][22] and believe that society and men have been "feminized" by the women's movement.[7][19] Sarah Maddison, an Australian author, has claimed that Warren Farrell and Herb Goldberg "argue that, for most men, power is an illusion, and that women are the true power holders in society through their roles as the primary carers and nurturers of children."[19]
> 
> One of the first major men's rights organizations was the Coalition of American Divorce Reform Elements, founded by Richard Doyle in 1971, from which the Men's Rights Association spun off in 1973.[16][23] Free Men Inc. was founded in 1977 in Columbia, Maryland, spawning several chapters over the following years, which eventually merged to form the National Coalition of Free Men[24] (now known as the National Coalition for Men). Men's Rights, Inc. was also formed in 1977.[25][24] In the United Kingdom, a men's rights group calling itself the UK Men's Movement began to organize in the early 1990s.[26] The Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF) was founded in 2005, and in 2010 claimed to have over 30,000 members.[27][28][29]
> ...








Spoiler: Brief summary of issues from wiki






> *Issues[edit]*
> The men's rights movement is concerned with a wide variety of issues, some of which have spawned their own groups or movements, such as the fathers' rights movement, concerned specifically with divorce and child custody issues.[72] Some if not many men's rights issues stem from double standards, gender roles, and, according to sociologist Allan Johnson, [73]
> 
> *Adoption[edit]*
> ...






Like the feminism thread this is obviously a potential honeypot and every previous thread on the MRA movement or its issues here has failed. Because of this past history I will not be extending the benefit of the doubt I normally give to controversial posters. State your opinions in a calm, rational and polite manner. If I see absurd hyperbole (for example 'feminists are the KKK' or 'all theists are inherently mentally retarded'- both quotes from this forum) or any kind of aggressive language or personal attacks I will push for a shallow thoughts ban.

This thread will remain locked until I have moved over the relevant posts from the feminism thread. The last two pages of that thread are really talking about the MRA movement

Edit: unlocked


----------



## GS 281 (Nov 30, 2015)

I have to say, I do not understand he merit of Men's Rights Activists. Is it equal rights that MRA's seek? Different but equal in terms of accommodating rights? What is the overall objective of the MRA movement?


----------



## Morbid Boredom (Nov 30, 2015)

yawning sneasel said:


> I have to say, I do not understand he merit of Men's Rights Activists. Is it equal rights that MRA's seek? Different but equal in terms of accommodating rights? What is the overall objective of the MRA movement?


Their own comfort with a minimum of effort.


----------



## KingQueen (Nov 30, 2015)

yawning sneasel said:


> I have to say, I do not understand he merit of Men's Rights Activists. Is it equal rights that MRA's seek? Different but equal in terms of accommodating rights? What is the overall objective of the MRA movement?


This depends on which subgroup you talk to - while @PeteyCoffee thinks I was being snarky, I wasn't kidding. Besides the incels we make fun on on KF, there are other groups. One is ultra-conservative, who believe maleness and masculinity are objectively superior traits and that therefore, naturally, manly men should be in control. They range from your typical GOP fan all the way to gentlemen who think women are literal objects who exist for sexual pleasure for men. I find these folks and the incels believe that women are only truly satisifed with life once they accept and fulfil their natural purpose for sex, and that Feminism is women deluding themselves into thinking otherwise.

Then there are a group of men, often more liberal but not always, who see certain social cultures and laws as harming men and boys. For example, mother-favoring custody laws, the high male suicide rate, gang-related violence, and so on. They tend to campaign on ways to raise boys in more functional ways, as well as for legal changes. Some of them also support Feminism, but I think typically then they don't call themselves "MRAs" but I could be wrong. Some of them believe Feminism is matriarchal and actively dismantling rights for males.


----------



## GS 281 (Nov 30, 2015)

How does this translate into rights activism, though? What policy are they pushing for? How do they want government to change?


----------



## chimpburgers (Nov 30, 2015)

How about women who identify themselves as MRAs like Karen Straughan?


----------



## Morbid Boredom (Nov 30, 2015)

yawning sneasel said:


> How does this translate into rights activism, though? What policy are they pushing for? How do they want government to change?


Probably the jurisprudence around matrimonial law.  It assumes that women still can't get high-earning jobs, so men really get screwed in alimony.  Also, laws regarding custody favor the mother -with the implication men are incompetent and uncaring parents.


----------



## GS 281 (Nov 30, 2015)

Morbid Boredom said:


> Probably the jurisprudence around matrimonial law.  It assumes that women still can't get high-earning jobs, so men really get screwed in alimony.  Also, laws regarding custody favor the mother -with the implication men are incompetent and uncaring parents.


I wouldn't trust me caring after a child, and I know most women work harder than me and make much less.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Nov 30, 2015)

I have a lot of things I could say on MRAs but I pause to think this is how many also view feminism and I wonder how many reasonable people who are MRAs get screamed out by the radicals or if the stereotype really is the norm. I wonder if it started out with decent people and then became overwhelmed by the spergs or if it was always like this from the start. Alas, my lack of perspective is only outmatched by how little I care.


----------



## Marvin (Nov 30, 2015)

OfflineCyberBully said:


> Unfortunately, I think a fair amount of MRA hate stems from a knee-jerk reaction against the fact that the more extreme members of the movement essentially want to put women "back in the kitchen" and redefine the female identity solely on the basis of wife/motherhood, just as the common knee-jerk reaction to feminism is that it wants to destroy men. Of course, both these reactions are grounded in a kernel of truth - idiots on the extreme fringes of both movements seem to want exactly that to happen - and the more sensible, moderate elements in both movements get drowned out by the idiocy.


I have a negative impression about anyone who is dumb enough to call themselves an MRA. I think this is a result of identity politics, where every additional label you tack onto yourself limits ties you down to another set of stereotypes.

Even if MRAs don't intend for it, people are naturally going to compare men's rights activism and feminism. And that's not a favorable comparison for MRAs. When MRAs make that comparison (even unintentionally) they come off as excessively dramatic. And there are plenty of MRAs who make that comparison intentionally, and those people are huge dumbasses.

I think @Alberto Balsalm hit the nail on the head. The term "feminism" has lots of historical currency. I think that men's rights activism lacks that historical currency, and that most people willing to label themselves an MRA are dumbasses.

Of course, lots of internet feminists are doing their darndest to piss away that historical currency. But as long as women's suffrage is still a part of our cultural memory, I think feminism is still pretty solid. Heh, also, Islam is helping remind people that feminism is still important. Thanks Islam!

All that being said, as people have touched on, there are some huge issues that exclusively affect men that need to be addressed. Men get discriminated against in divorce proceedings, they're constantly under suspicious of pedophilia, and yet male victims of pedophilia (especially if the perpetrator is female) get treated pretty shittily, they're subject to impossible standards of masculinity, etc.


----------



## chimpburgers (Nov 30, 2015)

Marvin said:


> I have a negative impression about anyone who is dumb enough to call themselves an MRA. I think this is a result of identity politics, where every additional label you tack onto yourself limits ties you down to another set of stereotypes.
> 
> Even if MRAs don't intend for it, people are naturally going to compare men's rights activism and feminism. And that's not a favorable comparison for MRAs. When MRAs make that comparison (even unintentionally) they come off as excessively dramatic. And there are plenty of MRAs who make that comparison intentionally, and those people are huge dumbasses.
> 
> ...


I can see what you're saying. Often times in some of these movements, the people themselves become their own worst enemy even if some of the issues that they stand for like family court laws and child custody are actual concerns. It does not help that just a couple of years ago, I had not heard anything about mens rights activism whatsoever. It's in the last few years that I've been hearing more about it, so compared to feminism and its long history, that alone gives the movement a lot of challenges to overcome if they are ever to become something worth taking seriously by the public.


----------



## Save Goober (Nov 30, 2015)

As previously mentioned, MRAs don't really do anything. The bulk of their "activism" involves complaining that feminists don't do things for them. For example, they complain a lot about domestic shelters for male victims. But I've seen absolutely no effort on their part to, y'know, build one, raise money to fund one, or anything remotely useful. They just complain that feminists don't make them for them and cry about how it's unfair as a lame "gotcha" tactic.

To most of their complaints, my response is basically boo fucking hoo. Like, for example the false rape claims sperging. Yes, false rape claims are shitty and need to be dealt with. But women have been dealing with the fear of rape since pretty much forever. Now that there's a relatively comparable crime women can do to men, it's suddenly the biggest issue ever, to the point idiots like Ian Ironwood actually advise young men not to go to college. It's really hard to be empathetic.
That and I just don't see much evidence of their claims; for example, a gross proportion of women I've known have been raped and the rapists weren't ever punished, but I've literally never known someone who was formally accused (falsely or not) of rape outside of the internet. I've known men who leeched off their wives for alimony. etc. I know anecdotal evidence is shit, but I know a lot of people and I've lived a lot of places so I'm pretty confident if these things were remotely as common as MRAs claim, I'd see at least _some_ evidence of it.
One MRA issue I do think is kind of important is women "trapping" men, I think that's absolute shit.


----------



## KingQueen (Nov 30, 2015)

yawning sneasel said:


> How does this translate into rights activism, though? What policy are they pushing for? How do they want government to change?


I'm not an MRA so I can't really answer well, but from some acquaintances I've heard:

- they wish to change the laws which after divorce places a child automatically with the mother (in some places) or put in laws to prevent this from automatically happening

- they wish to repeal the laws in some places that have "automatic arrest" after domestic violence (I forget what the laws are called). They claim these laws unfairly target men.

- some of them are against "diversity" laws like "affirmative action" because they believe it prevents men from being hired on merit by forcing a minority hire over someone more qualified

- some  are pushing for paternal  leave (a rare few, and I think these folks tend not to call themselves MRAs....but that goes back to the label argument again)

Those are just off the top of my head. As for defining their "overall ideology"....I'm not sure there is one. I'm under the impression most folks who specifically call themselves MRAs believe that Feminism's agenda is to remove rights from men.


----------



## AnOminous (Nov 30, 2015)

KingQueen said:


> I'm not an MRA so I can't really answer well, but from some acquaintances I've heard:
> 
> - they wish to change the laws which after divorce places a child automatically with the mother (in some places) or put in laws to prevent this from automatically happening



Incidentally, if the Equal Rights Amendment had been ratified, this would be outright unconstitutional in every state in the Union.

It's also terrible policy.  In some situations, the mother is clearly completely unfit.

The only basis for a custody policy should be the good of the child.

What's a lot more common than some ridiculous and explicitly discriminatory policy is simply bias by decision-makers (usually family court judges or state agencies) that unfairly favors women over men and tends to disregard evidence of unfitness when it applies to women.

Where this bias is unintentional, though, the decision-makers tend to correct it of their own volition.



> - they wish to repeal the laws in some places that have "automatic arrest" after domestic violence (I forget what the laws are called). They claim these laws unfairly target men.



I'd agree with the automatic arrest, regardless of the sex of the offender.



> - some of them are against "diversity" laws like "affirmative action" because they believe it prevents men from being hired on merit by forcing a minority hire over someone more qualified



This sounds more like a white man's rights activist issue.



> - some  are pushing for paternal  leave (a rare few, and I think these folks tend not to call themselves MRAs....but that goes back to the label argument again)



Like most actually egalitarian policies, this would benefit women as well as men, both by making both parents available for early child care and family bonding, but also by removing the incentive not to discriminate against women.

Some employers are wary of hiring women because of the disproportionate cost of maternity leave.  If both parents are going to take parental leave, though, it isn't as much of a difference.

For example, Sweden actually makes parental leave mandatory.



> Those are just off the top of my head. As for defining their "overall ideology"....I'm not sure there is one. I'm under the impression most folks who specifically call themselves MRAs believe that Feminism's agenda is to remove rights from men.



Most people who actually call themselves MRAs are fucking insane and give a terrible name to the shit they espouse.

For instance, when the guy complaining about unfair child custody rules and men being disproportionately targeted as pedophiles turns out to be a wife-beating deadbeat dad, it does nothing for the reputation of the movement.


----------



## PeteyCoffee (Dec 1, 2015)

I'm beginning to think my views on MRAs have been painted mostly by what feminists have said about them. I have not had _much_ direct exposure.


KingQueen said:


> This depends on which subgroup you talk to - while @PeteyCoffee thinks I was being snarky, I wasn't kidding. Besides the incels we make fun on on KF, there are other groups. One is ultra-conservative, who believe maleness and masculinity are objectively superior traits and that therefore, naturally, manly men should be in control. They range from your typical GOP fan all the way to gentlemen who think women are literal objects who exist for sexual pleasure for men. I find these folks and the incels believe that women are only truly satisifed with life once they accept and fulfil their natural purpose for sex, and that Feminism is women deluding themselves into thinking otherwise.
> 
> Then there are a group of men, often more liberal but not always, who see certain social cultures and laws as harming men and boys. For example, mother-favoring custody laws, the high male suicide rate, gang-related violence, and so on. They tend to campaign on ways to raise boys in more functional ways, as well as for legal changes. Some of them also support Feminism, but I think typically then they don't call themselves "MRAs" but I could be wrong. Some of them believe Feminism is matriarchal and actively dismantling rights for males.


How do "red pillers" fall into all of this? I actually have had a very positive impression when it comes to most of them.


dollarhuviya said:


> How about women who identify themselves as MRAs like Karen Straughan?


I've watched her videos analyzing Internet cult leaders, some of her counterarguments against SJW and Feminist arguments, and some of her compilations of evidence against false claims made by Feminists and SJWs. Her videos are very well-researched and compelling.


Marvin said:


> I have a negative impression about anyone who is dumb enough to call themselves an MRA. I think this is a result of identity politics, where every additional label you tack onto yourself limits ties you down to another set of stereotypes.


I have a similar negative initial impression towards individuals who call themselves Feminists. They are labeling themselves in the same way SJW figureheads of the contemporary popular movement do. I try to give individuals the benefit of the doubt until they've expressed their views. Every so often, I find one who hadn't meant to associate with them.


melty said:


> As previously mentioned, MRAs don't really do anything. The bulk of their "activism" involves complaining that feminists don't do things for them. For example, they complain a lot about domestic shelters for male victims. But I've seen absolutely no effort on their part to, y'know, build one, raise money to fund one, or anything remotely useful. They just complain that feminists don't make them for them and cry about how it's unfair as a lame "gotcha" tactic.


I feel the same way about Feminists. The bulk of their "activism" involves complaining that men don't do things for them. They aren't proactive, for the most part. It's like, "things need to change... You foot the bill!"


AnOminous said:


> For instance, when the guy complaining about unfair child custody rules and men being disproportionately targeted as pedophiles turns out to be a wife-beating deadbeat dad, it does nothing for the reputation of the movement.


The same thing goes for charlatans of any denomination or creed.


----------



## Picklepower (Dec 1, 2015)

PeteyCoffee you once disliked a post where I said that ignoring real sexism is a problem, what about that exactly did you disagree with?

You asked me "how?" and at the time I didn't answer because I thought you might be trolling.
I don't think what I said was controversial, but it was kinda vague, so I'll answer. I simply meant that a good society is one in which people try to treat each other equally, (or as equal as possible, because I know men and women do have differences). I wasn't trying to imply that only women face problems.


----------



## GS 281 (Dec 1, 2015)

So, basically a few family law issues. I never gathered that from their message. All I have seen is just talk about feminists. 

It might be more productive for them to try and work with feminists to solve these few family law issues if both sides are rights-based activists.


----------



## PeteyCoffee (Dec 1, 2015)

Picklepower said:


> PeteyCoffee you once disliked a post where I said that ignoring real sexism is a problem, what about that exactly did you disagree with?


The way I see it, worrying over the fact that there are sexists in the world achieves nothing. Because you can't change that; you can't control people's minds.

If you obsess over the pricks, it's like they have control over your life; if you ignore them, they have nothing on you.


----------



## Save Goober (Dec 1, 2015)

PeteyCoffee said:


> I feel the same way about Feminists. The bulk of their "activism" involves complaining that men don't do things for them. They aren't proactive, for the most part. It's like, "things need to change... You foot the bill!"
> 
> The same thing goes for charlatans of any denomination or creed.


But that's not true at all. Feminists have built domestic violence shelters. There are a lot of women's groups like women in tech, women in business that are actually very informative. I went to a women's conference that was very informative and not at all just complaints. Some feminists have made kids toys and games aimed at getting more girls into stem. Feminist politicians propose legislation aimed at achieving equality. I saw a feminist recently who was raising money to help fly poor women to places where they could more easily get abortions. If you really think feminists don't do anything you're not paying attention.


PeteyCoffee said:


> How do "red pillers" fall into all of this? I actually have had a very positive impression when it comes to most of them.


Lol


----------



## PeteyCoffee (Dec 1, 2015)

melty said:


> But that's not true at all. Feminists have built domestic violence shelters. There are a lot of women's groups like women in tech, women in business that are actually very informative. I went to a women's conference that was very informative and not at all just complaints. Some feminists have made kids toys and games aimed at getting more girls into stem. Feminist politicians propose legislation aimed at achieving equality. I saw a feminist recently who was raising money to help fly poor women to places where they could more easily get abortions. If you really think feminists don't do anything you're not paying attention.


I know some Feminists are proactive; I just haven't come across very many. Though a lot of them do seem to be concerned about trying to pass legislation, which _is_ trying to force other people to do/pay for things on their behalf. Some MRAs go to conferences, but there aren't very many MRAs, so it makes sense there isn't nearly as much money to go around.

I just looked up /r/TheRedPill, and the opening blurb says, "Discussion of sexual strategy in a culture increasingly lacking a positive identity for men." I kind of like that. If Feminists talked about what they could be doing to try to improve themselves, I would like their movement a lot more. I'm sure there are _some _Feminists who do this, but what I see is a bunch of victim complexes and perpetration of that mindset.


----------



## AnOminous (Dec 1, 2015)

PeteyCoffee said:


> I just looked up /r/TheRedPill



This is where I'd put my picture of Penn Jillette, if I had one.


----------



## TheMightyMonarch (Dec 3, 2015)

I actually do sympathize with MRAs on some issues. Like in regards to custody battles and not taking female perpetrators as seriously as they should. But they loose all credibility when they blame these issues on feminism and women in general. Yeah there are some women out there who promote this kind of toxic mindset but there are men who do the same. I feel like MRAs (and Tumblr feminists) demonize the opposite gender when in reality , they should work together and try to demolish these type of gender roles that hurt both men and women. Like that'll ever happen though. Ah well. At least the r/RedPill is fun to laugh at. 



dollarhuviya said:


> How about women who identify themselves as MRAs like Karen Straughan?



Ugh. I find her to be awful. Still, she's a ray of sunshine in comparison to JudgyBitch.


----------



## PeteyCoffee (Dec 3, 2015)

AnOminous said:


> This is where I'd put my picture of Penn Jillette, if I had one.


I disagree with that line of reasoning.

It's like, I've visited Feminist circles and read or talked to many Feminists and that's how I know I object to and despise that political and social movement. If I took on the mindset, "people who have talked to Feminists or have read Feminist literature can have their opinions thrown in the garbage", I never would have been able to develop an informed opinion.


----------



## Emiya Kiwitsugu (Dec 3, 2015)

PeteyCoffee said:


> I disagree with that line of reasoning.
> 
> It's like, I've visited Feminist circles and read or talked to many Feminists and that's how I know I object to and despise that political and social movement. If I took on the mindset, "people who have talked to Feminists or have read Feminist literature can have their opinions thrown in the garbage", I never would have been able to develop an informed opinion.


As a long-term resident of our love-shy therapy center here, just no. r/theredpill is blatantly sexist. I'm sure there's some places that are MRA-related that are better, but r/theredpill isn't one of them.


----------



## PeteyCoffee (Dec 4, 2015)

Emiya Kiwitsugu said:


> As a long-term resident of our love-shy therapy center here, just no. r/theredpill is blatantly sexist. I'm sure there's some places that are MRA-related that are better, but r/theredpill isn't one of them.


I'm not doubting what you're saying, but unless you've browsed TheRedPill, you don't know. Kiwi threads don't cut it. We focus on the few lolcows in a sea of unfunny people.


----------



## Emiya Kiwitsugu (Dec 4, 2015)

PeteyCoffee said:


> I'm not doubting what you're saying, but unless you've browsed TheRedPill, you don't know. Kiwi threads don't cut it. We focus on the few lolcows in a sea of unfunny people.


Of course we've browsed it, that's how you find content on it. It's been brought up in various thread, and @Cosmos recently made a general thread entirely for it.

Looking at the front page of it, we have some gems such as, "Women are an amalgamation of popular culture: or why they offer nothing of value aside from their pussies." "A Look into the blue pill world of Elliot Rogders." And "Women are mislead by society, just like blue pill beta bob."

Seriously, r/theredpill isn't the kind of place you want to defend.


----------



## Sanae Kochiya (Dec 4, 2015)

PeteyCoffee said:


> I'm not doubting what you're saying, but unless you've browsed TheRedPill, you don't know. Kiwi threads don't cut it. We focus on the few lolcows in a sea of unfunny people.


Yeah, no.  They're just a bunch of very butthurt virgins.


----------



## BT 075 (Dec 4, 2015)

Sanae Kochiya said:


> Yeah, no.  They're just a bunch of very butthurt virgins.



The red pill people are, yes. Every single one of them.

With the MRA's you have different groups. There is a small group of them who are divorced fathers who lost their children, or who had to pay their spouse a shit ton of money after they parted ways. They have negative experiences with the court, cheating spouses, paternity fraud, and I legitimately understand that and sympathize because there are spouses who will abuse the law to screw you over.

The thing is, these men are the minority. The older men who actually lived live, who actually had long-lasting relationships with women that went wrong, who were dealt an unfair hand in life and who are (often rightfully) bitter about it. The majority of red pillers and MRAs are young men who point at the stories of these older men, and say: "Look! Look how the feminists are destroying men! Clearly they must all hate men!"

They then use the stories of the unlucky few to prove a point of how all women are evil, of how all feminists are out to get you. But just because some men are screwed over by their wives in court, does that mean those wives are feminists? Does that mean those courts are infiltrated by feminists? And the most important question: why do these red pillers worry so much about the ways in which a woman might potentially hurt them, when none of them will ever have a woman in the first place?

The Men's Right Activism movement is a crowd of angry, spiteful virgins and romantically unsuccessful young men, who have hijacked a small movement of husbands and fathers who got screwed over by their wives and use their example as a way to justify their intense hatred for women. If MRAs wanted to be taken seriously, I suggest they kick out any faggot who uses the word "redpilled" unironically.


----------



## Ariel (Dec 4, 2015)

Satan said:


> The red pill people are, yes. Every single one of them.
> 
> With the MRA's you have different groups. There is a small group of them who are divorced fathers who lost their children, or who had to pay their spouse a shit ton of money after they parted ways. They have negative experiences with the court, cheating spouses, paternity fraud, and I legitimately understand that and sympathize because there are spouses who will abuse the law to screw you over.
> 
> ...



I'm fairly sure most feminists (not the attention seeking twitter kind) would actually side with what the real MRAs are after. Men losing custody of their children because they are not seen to be primary carers is a real thing.


----------



## PeteyCoffee (Dec 4, 2015)

Emiya Kiwitsugu said:


> Of course we've browsed it, that's how you find content on it. It's been brought up in various thread, and @Cosmos recently made a general thread entirely for it.
> 
> Looking at the front page of it, we have some gems such as, "Women are an amalgamation of popular culture: or why they offer nothing of value aside from their pussies." "A Look into the blue pill world of Elliot Rogders." And "Women are mislead by society, just like blue pill beta bob."
> 
> Seriously, r/theredpill isn't the kind of place you want to defend.


Is it sexist to say that societial expectations screw with women, or that Elliot Rogers was obsessed with the notion that he had to have a girlfriend and that was a part of his insanity? That third post was sexist, but if you read the comments, most of the red pillers thought the same thing and criticized the OP.


Satan said:


> The red pill people are, yes. Every single one of them.
> 
> With the MRA's you have different groups. There is a small group of them who are divorced fathers who lost their children, or who had to pay their spouse a shit ton of money after they parted ways. They have negative experiences with the court, cheating spouses, paternity fraud, and I legitimately understand that and sympathize because there are spouses who will abuse the law to screw you over.
> 
> ...


If Feminism supports government policies which advantage women at the expense of men, it is working against men.

Red Pillers might say, "Look! Look how the feminists are destroying men!", and then point to real cases in which Feminist supported laws screwed over some men. You claim this somehow invalidates their concerns and makes them dumb losers? What about the blacks who complained about Jim Crow but werent lynched themselves?

Mainstream society is infiltrated by feminists. Is the media not an example enough? How almost anyone who even remotely says the wrong thing in the eyes of Feminists is character assassinated by all the major news sources and destroyed professionally. And how demonstrably shady and nasty individuals who also happen to be Feminists are painted universally by the media as paragons of virtue and heroes.

In America, you often can't criticize a woman without getting called a sexist, because a lot of people consider attacking one woman or one group of women or even the cultural norms of women the same thing as attacking all women. Evidently, mainstream Americans believe all women are the same. Feminism!

I have found zero evidence of 'rampant sexism by red pillers', therefore, I am led to believe this is what's happening here.


----------



## Ariel (Dec 4, 2015)

PeteyCoffee said:


> It's sexist to say that societial expectations screw with women, or that Elliot Rogers was obsessed with the notion that he had to have a girlfriend and that was a part of his insanity? That third post was sexist, but if you read the comments, most of the red pillers thought the same thing and criticized the OP.
> 
> If Feminism supports government policies which advantage women at the expense of men, it is working against men.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sanae Kochiya (Dec 4, 2015)

*on phone*

Yes.  Can I get a shipment of tinfoil hats?  ... Yes, take a right at New Zealand.  Kiwi Farms should be right there.  Alright, thanks.


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 4, 2015)

Satan said:


> The red pill people are, yes. Every single one of them.
> 
> With the MRA's you have different groups. There is a small group of them who are divorced fathers who lost their children, or who had to pay their spouse a shit ton of money after they parted ways. They have negative experiences with the court, cheating spouses, paternity fraud, and I legitimately understand that and sympathize because there are spouses who will abuse the law to screw you over.
> 
> ...



All of this.

If MRAs want to be taken seriously, they really need to focus on the whole "gender inequality in family courts" thing, which I think most people can get behind. But acting like men are this oppressed minority while spitting about how all women are vindictive, shallow, stupid cunts who are out to destroy everything with a penis makes people (rightfully) mock MRAs as whiny manbabies.


----------



## Emiya Kiwitsugu (Dec 4, 2015)

PeteyCoffee said:


> Is it sexist to say that societial expectations screw with women, or that Elliot Rogers was obsessed with the notion that he had to have a girlfriend and that was a part of his insanity? That third post was sexist, but if you read the comments, most of the red pillers thought the same thing and criticized the OP.
> 
> If Feminism supports government policies which advantage women at the expense of men, it is working against men.
> 
> ...


There's a reason no one takes MRAs seriously.

It's because of posts like this.


----------



## chimpburgers (Dec 4, 2015)

PeteyCoffee said:


> Is it sexist to say that societial expectations screw with women, or that Elliot Rogers was obsessed with the notion that he had to have a girlfriend and that was a part of his insanity? That third post was sexist, but if you read the comments, most of the red pillers thought the same thing and criticized the OP.
> 
> If Feminism supports government policies which advantage women at the expense of men, it is working against men.
> 
> ...


Try defending Paul Elam and the loons at A Voice for Men. Are they not fucking out of their minds to you? How about Dean Esmay?


----------



## PeteyCoffee (Dec 4, 2015)

Emiya Kiwitsugu said:


> There's a reason no one takes MRAs seriously.
> 
> It's because of posts like this.


I don't take MRAs seriously and it has nothing to do with that.


----------



## Lovekindler (Dec 5, 2015)

former MRA here

Every MRA I have met (Including myself) has been either a loveshy, a angry butthurt Elliot Rodger wannabe (15 year old me), or if female, basically the actual stereotype of the girl who joins to get attention. I personally quit being a fedoralord because one, I actually started talking to women without being a sexual sleazebag, and two, I got a girlfriend despite being fat and under certain lights, ugly. I did find out that all I needed to do was just find a way to be happier, and happier I am. I look at MRA and loveshy sites and wonder if I did keep going, how would my life be now? Would I be featured on the Farms?


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 17, 2015)

I took a gender studies class this semester (fortunately, it was actually very enjoyable and not obnoxious in the slightest) and I just remembered a really interesting excerpt I read. It's about how the MRA movement (although it's specifically called the "fathers' rights movement" here) is *really* shooting itself in the foot by being so hostile towards feminism as a whole. It's from a book called _Angry White Men _by Michael Kimmel.


> If men have increased their family time, it’s not because they were marching to the beat of a male drum and bugle corps. Indeed, many men resisted for decades. It’s been women, and especially those working mothers inspired by feminist ideals of workplace equality, who have been imploring, cajoling, insisting, yelling, and otherwise pleading with them to do their share. The dual-career, dual-caregiver family form —the family form that is becoming the norm in American society—is, let’s be clear, a feminist invention. So it’s a bit ironic, and a lot disingenuous, for these same men who have stepped up and become more active fathers to now declare they are doing so in opposition to feminism. Theirs is the other half of gender equality in the public sphere, and this massive cultural transformation, this blending of the public and the private, is partly the result of a relentless campaign by feminist women.
> 
> Instead of thanking women—and especially those feminist-inspired working mothers—for enabling and insisting that we spend more time in our families, the fathers’ rights movement spends a lot of time attacking those same feminist women. They take their grief and confusion at the dissolution of their families and transform it into rage at their ex-wives, their ex-wives’ lawyers, family-court judges—and, of course, the feminist women who seem to inspire them all.
> 
> ...



I mean, I think he raises a lot of very good points.


----------



## Vitriol (Dec 17, 2015)

Cosmos said:


> I took a gender studies class this semester (fortunately, it was actually very enjoyable and not obnoxious in the slightest) and I just remembered a really interesting excerpt I read. It's about how the MRA movement (although it's specifically called the "fathers' rights movement" here) is *really* shooting itself in the foot by being so hostile towards feminism as a whole. It's from a book called _Angry White Men _by Michael Kimmel.
> 
> 
> I mean, I think he raises a lot of very good points.


I disagree especially with this part:





> What are the forces that have prevented men from becoming the fathers that they say they want to be? They are a combination of an unyielding workplace and an ideology of masculinity that promotes robotic stoicism over nurturing, competition over patience, aggression over justice. That is, it’s institutional inflexibility, giving guys the message that the “unencumbered worker” is really the best sort of worker (here they would find common cause with women who are also stymied by this). The set of attitudes and traits that is most closely associated with masculinity—robotic stoicism, competition, aggression—are those that contradict most with the qualities needed to be a good parent: patience, nurturing, emotional resilience. In that sense, men who seek to be really involved fathers have to choose between fatherhood and masculinity—at least in the traditional sense of masculinity. It’s a false choice, of course, and the groups that have launched the most persuasive critique of traditional notions of masculinity have been black men, gay men, and feminist women.



I was brought up in a traditionally masculine culture and the masculine values were not those rather: Kindness, wisdom, strength, justice, teamwork and personal discipline.  fatherhood was always the epitome of successful masculinity and every wee boy wanted to be his dad. Descriptions of masculine behaviour as aggressive, impatient and stone hearted and uber competitive have never matched the reality of male society as I've experienced it. Get a bunch of lads together and there will very quickly be bonds and friendships formed and where friendships are formed you get emotional support networks, people helping (ie nurturing each other) and all the rest of the traits that fellow claims don't exist in 'traditional masculinity'.

he mentions that '_the most persuasive critique of traditional notions of masculinity have been black men, gay men, and feminist women_.' I don't think this is a coincidence. All those groups are either A) outside of traditional masculinity having historically been either rejected by it (gay men) or set themselves against it as a strawman (feminists and to an extent certain modern black academics who blame white men for all the persisting problems in society). Their views on masculinity are from the outside looking in and are more a projection than an accurate analysis in my opinion.

He has good points that the MRA movement is wasting its time attacking radical feminists when they should be lobbying alongside moderates for legal changes though- I'll give him that.

Edit: in all honesty its a little insulting when i think about it, like those victorian gents who categorised traditional femininity as vapid and hysterical. I suppose the response would be that its not men but 'traditional masculinity' he's referring to, but in practice that is our fathers, uncles, grandfathers and great uncles. I'm reasonably confident that i won't be the only one who struggles to think of a male relative who fits his model. I know far more fathers who openly love their children than are cold stoics 'caught between masculinity and fatherhood'. Obviously some men are shit but that's true of any group. What he and others describe as traditional masculinity is a weird caricature of edwardian men like something from Mary Poppins. Like the father in said film its not something i'm convinced ever actually existed to any great extent.


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 17, 2015)

Vitriol said:


> I disagree especially with this part:
> 
> I was brought up in a traditionally masculine culture and the masculine values were not those rather: Kindness, wisdom, strength, justice, teamwork and personal discipline.  fatherhood was always the epitome of successful masculinity and every wee boy wanted to be his dad. Descriptions of masculine behaviour as aggressive, impatient and stone hearted and uber competitive have never matched the reality of male society as I've experienced it. Get a bunch of lads together and there will very quickly be bonds and friendships formed and where friendships are formed you get emotional support networks, people helping (ie nurturing each other) and all the rest of the traits that fellow claims don't exist in 'traditional masculinity'.
> 
> ...



I agree that he generalizes a bit too much, but I think some of his criticisms of masculinity are valid. Masculinity isn't a monolithic concept that's the same all across the board; some traits remain the same, yeah, but the concept of masculinity in Sweden is going to different than the concept of masculinity in Libya. And in some areas, excessive masculinity can be seen as a force that prevents men from being good fathers. For example, let's say that you live in an area that rigorously enforces the "men don't cry" mentality and sees emotional openness as a weakness, believing that men should act as a "rock" instead. If you were concerned with maintaining your masculinity, that would probably make it hard for you to be a father who is openly affectionate to his children. 

Again, I think the "MASCULINITY IS BAD!!!' mentality is really stupid, because there's really no single definition of masculinity. And besides that, all concepts of masculinity have good and bad sides to them. I just think that ignoring the bad sides isn't a good idea, because it leads to nothing changing. I mean, it's still not socially acceptable for men to cry (unless it's because of the death of a loved one or because you just got kicked in the balls) or be openly emotional... even though men have the exact same capacity for emotions that women do.

Actually, you know what? I wish we'd stop obsessing over masculinity and femininity already. Like, for example, redpillers and MRAs are always whining about the "feminization" of America/Europe, like it's somehow a bad thing to be feminine. Or they whine about how men who are sensitive have been "feminized" or "emasculated."  Men and women should be allowed to be however they want to be without worrying about rigid gender stereotypes.


----------



## Vitriol (Dec 17, 2015)

Cosmos said:


> And in some areas, excessive masculinity can be seen as a force that prevents men from being good fathers. For example, let's say that you live in an area that rigorously enforces the "men don't cry" mentality and sees emotional openness as a weakness, believing that men should act as a "rock" instead. If you were concerned with maintaining your masculinity, that would probably make it hard for you to be a father who is openly affectionate to his children


Excessive anything is of course bad but he is criticizing traditional masculinity not excesive masculinity.  i don't believe the traditional concept of masculinity in the west is harmful to fathers wanting to be properly engaged and i dont think his description of it is accurate.


I suppose my broader point is that academics like the fellow above focus nearly exclusively on a concept of masculinity which is oversimple,  inaccurate and overwhelmingly negative. No serious academic would release a book called 'hysterical black women' and proceed to make broad claims to toxic feminity. The inaccuracies in his analysis in my opinion rob his solutions of weight and effectiveness. He is attempting to fix a machine when he doesn't understand how it works or what is broken.

Edit: i think part of the reason you find his criticisms convincing is you too are outside looking in, for example men in even stoic cultures do cry and show emotional vulnerability but they typically do so in the company of their peers rather than the public. Therefore we get analysis like his claiming that men do not express their emotions when this is simply not the case- they just use a different forum. This is where the MRM could have been great in forming a masculine counterpart to early introspective feminist writing, instead we got losers whining about not getting laid  

I don't think one can improve things without having the full picture and the focuss of all too many academics on flawed analysis like this provides such a narrow distorted view of how men work i don't think they're at all useful.

Im not saying they couldn't be useful and proper analysis would i think be beneficial but i think the vast majority of stuff on masculinity at the moment is dross that would not be considered of acceptable quality if it were about women. Thats from both the MRAs and Academics.


----------



## Cave (Dec 17, 2015)

Labels are harmful because, over time, groups devolve and result in chaos. A split in the group, loud loons talking over the quieter rational side, self-interest replacing principle, etc. 

All of these create negative connotations for a group. The MRAs and the Feminists are no different. 

The wrong side is often the loudest and will get the most attention. This reflects on the entire group and ruins their reputation.

All this talk of gender rights and such eliminates any discussion of classism. This is just as important as all other forms of discrimination, but to bring it up would be rather jarring because we view all of these issues as gender-based. We need to view gender issues as human issues. Only then can both men and women come together and truly attempt to tackle these problems.


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 17, 2015)

Vitriol said:


> Excessive anything is of course bad but he is criticizing traditional masculinity not excesive masculinity.  i don't believe the traditional concept of masculinity in the west is harmful to fathers wanting to be properly engaged and i dont think his description of it is accurate.
> 
> 
> I suppose my broader point is that academics like the fellow above focus nearly exclusively on a concept of masculinity which is oversimple,  inaccurate and overwhelmingly negative. No serious academic would release a book called 'hysterical black women' and proceed to make broad claims to toxic feminity. The inaccuracies in his analysis in my opinion rob his solutions of weight and effectiveness. He is attempting to fix a machine when he doesn't understand how it works or what is broken.
> ...



I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, because I think that harmful ideas pertaining to masculinity are partly responsible for the MRA and redpill movements. I mean, you don't have to look very hard to see those whiny misogynists taking concepts about masculinity to the extreme. And you're right in that I'm an outsider, but that's because I'm a woman. I do think that gives me a _little_ insight into how certain concepts about masculinity are harmful, especially when they affect _my _gender.


----------



## Vitriol (Dec 18, 2015)

Cosmos said:


> I think that harmful ideas pertaining to masculinity are partly responsible for the MRA and redpill movements. I mean, you don't have to look very hard to see those whiny misogynists taking concepts about masculinity to the extreme.


I don't disagree that extremist concepts of masculinity are bad, but i don't think its fair to take the existence of extremists as evidence of general problems with masculinity, especially when such extremists are a tiny minority- it is the same as claiming radical feminists are evidence of harmful ideas about feminity which should be addressed, which is blatantly nonsense.



Cosmos said:


> And you're right in that I'm an outsider, but that's because I'm a woman. I do think that gives me a _little_ insight into how certain concepts about masculinity are harmful, especially when they affect _my _gender.


This is interesting, because here i think you are doing the same thing as you criticized here:


Cosmos said:


> Like, for example, redpillers and MRAs are always whining about the "feminization" of America/Europe, like it's somehow a bad thing to be feminine.


You identified that mra definitions of feminine qualities are inherently flawed because they blame their problems on women and this colours their analysis. i think you are correct there, however you then went on to do almost the exact same thing yourself. I mean if we change the genders in either of the above quotes we get ;



> Like, for example, redpillers and MRAs are always whining about the "feminization" of America/Europe, like it's somehow a bad thing to be feminine.
> 
> I'm a man. I do think that gives me a _little_ insight into how certain concepts about feminity are harmful, especially when they affect _my _gender.



If, when pressed on what concepts he believes are harmful, the hypothetical abve responder responded with a caricature of women he would rightly be called a sexist and that his concept of feminity is oversimple and riddled with projection and confirmation bias (we have numerous threads where exactly that happens).

I believe much of modern feminst analysis of masculinity, including the piece you initially quoted does the same thing albeit in the sophistic language of a field of academia.

I think it is fair to say from the above quotes that the concept that feminity is inherently harmful is anathema to you (and i would agree). My point is that the claim that traditional masculinity is inherently harmful is just as insulting to a great many men for exactly the same reasons.

I'm happy to agree to disagree. It has been interesting chatting with you.

I'm also happy to agree to agree on a fair few things aswell, i agree extremist masculinity can of course be a problem and the MRA movement is full of misogynists!


----------



## KingGeedorah (Dec 20, 2015)

PeteyCoffee said:


> Red Pillers might say, "Look! Look how the feminists are destroying men!", and then point to real cases in which Feminist supported laws screwed over some men. You claim this somehow invalidates their concerns and makes them dumb losers? What about the blacks who complained about Jim Crow but werent lynched themselves?



Dude you are pants on head loopy. The amount of educated blacks who could rationally and eloquently fight against Jim Crow laws were a minuscule minority. Yet some how these seconds class citizens fought against it. And people HATED them for it to the point of killing them.

Then you have MRA's who have the vast depository of information called the internet to call upon and you still end of with arguments such as 



Spoiler: Inane MGTOW quote



"The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone. You don’t argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn’t eat candy for dinner. You don’t punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don’t argue when a women tells you she’s only making 80 cents to your dollar. It’s the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles."



I don't know of any MRA who has had physical violence used against him by the majority that is oppressing him. No white neckbeards hanging from trees. 

It doesn't automatically make MRA's dumb losers, but to try and compare the two things is borderline retarded.


----------



## Datiko (Dec 21, 2015)

I think some of the ideas of true equality between the genders that MRA lead off with have merit.  The actual "activists" tend to be pretty intolerable though.   If I were to actually use the term MRA in a conversation it would be with the same intent that I would use SJW.  I don't think identifying as a MRA is a positive thing. 



AnOminous said:


> This sounds more like a white man's rights activist issue.



There are plenty of places in the world where affirmative action is used to favor an ethnic majority over a minority group.  Look up the word "Bumiputera" if you want to learn more.  That said, I don't agree with any affirmative action laws and I advocate against them against them when I am asked about the issue. I do so as a white person who is part of a small ethnic minority no longer holding a passport to a country where I belong to the ethnic majority.


----------



## observer (Dec 21, 2015)

The only area in which I agree with mras it that women often get shorter sentences for crimes, usually when the crime is sex or violence based. I can only recall one case in Australia where a women was charged with rape. I do believe that as society gets more gender equal we will see more of these types of crimes committed by women because if you believe that women are equally capable of achieving as much as a man then you have to accept that they are equally capable of being as "evil" as a man and society is yet to wrap their heads around that fact.

Fun fact, discovering that women commit rape almost as much as men (by the feminist definition of rape, but not the current legal one) is something that was discovered by a study conducted by feminists and is almost never mentioned by mars.

edit: to clarify, the feminist definition of rape includes when a man is forced of coerced to penetrate a women or another man. finding the original study on where they got that statistic is difficult (but I will keep looking and link to it when I do find it) but if that was made law, women would make up around 45% (some sources go as low as 40% others go as high as 47%) of rape cases. A group tried to make it law at one point but it was rejected on the grounds that it will give male rapists the perfect defence in court. if you google 'forced to penetrate' you can see multiple sources (both official news and blogs) that reference the study. The problem is that people still tend to think of rapists as being people who stalk strangers in dark alleyways but the truth is that is very rare these days. Most rapes are committed by someone who knows the victim and by abusing soft power or taking advantage of someone who is not able to consent at the time (e.g. drunk, mentally retarded, on drugs, asleep/passed out)

Although even if they do have the occasional point there insistence on blaming everything that goes wrong in their lives on a femanazi conspiracy theory and their casual misogyny makes them look like insane retards.

Also the majority of mras are not men who are genuinely persecuted (black men, gay men ect) but men who their maleness doesn't allow them to get away with as much as they used to (they took their wives for granted and she dumped his neglectful ass as soon as no fault Devorce laws were passed, you reap what you sow)

Before the mansphere "love shy" forum was created I was unsure if mras were considered lolcowish enough to warrant their own thread so I created an "mra debate thread in deep thoughts. The results were mixed but mostly that you should judge each of them individually and being an mra alone does not make you a lolcow. Also most people hate mras and didn't want to discuss them


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Dec 23, 2015)

observer said:


> edit: to clarify, the feminist definition of rape includes when a man is forced of coerced to penetrate a women or another man.



Isn't that basically correct?


----------



## observer (Dec 24, 2015)

Dudeofteenage said:


> Isn't that basically correct?


While it is factually correct, it is not currently implemented in law I'm America or Australia

The only location where a women received jail time for doing this is in Russia (say what you want about that country but they have been ahead of the west in terms of gender equality since the second would war with WW2 female soldiers and even an elite all-female WW2 bomber team called the night witches)


----------



## KingGeedorah (Dec 24, 2015)

observer said:


> While it is factually correct, it is not currently implemented in law I'm America or Australia
> 
> The only location where a women received jail time for doing this is in Russia (say what you want about that country but they have been ahead of the west in terms of gender equality since the second would war with WW2 female soldiers and even an elite all-female WW2 bomber team called the night witches)



Are you saying America doesn't prosecute female rapists?

http://fox4kc.com/2015/05/17/woman-convicted-of-breaking-into-apartment-raping-man-headed-to-prison/

http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/08/39783/

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news...-Raping-Child-Faces-Sentencing-330667101.html

Dang dirty feminazis getting away with everything in pussified America.


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Dec 24, 2015)

observer said:


> While it is factually correct, it is not currently implemented in law I'm America or Australia



Yes but when a feminist says 'X is rape' they are usually not describing current laws, but rather describing an ideal definition that current laws may or may not meet.


----------



## AnOminous (Dec 24, 2015)

Dudeofteenage said:


> Yes but when a feminist says 'X is rape' they are usually not describing current laws, but rather describing an ideal definition that current laws may or may not meet.



Their definition of rape usually seems to exclude any of their favored groups, so women are literally incapable of it, especially lesbians who take advantage of children.


----------



## systemlord_baal (Jan 6, 2016)

A bunch of fools, just the other side of the coin the rumblrinas sit on.


----------



## SlayerOfTyranny (Jan 11, 2016)

There is definitely a war on men,men's rights,masculinity,and young boys going on in the world today.

It's very obvious and plain to see.

Men's rights and Men's rights activism are certainly a legitimate issue.

The big problem is that advocates of the above do not campaign aggressively like the feminists do and also they cannot stand united.

They are just as likely to bicker with one another as they with their "opponents".

But if a great leader can arise who can unite the men in mass opposition it will be huge.

Lets put it this way.

The big problem with alot of the response from men to modern women and the resulting culture that it developed was that it was reactive.

It was addressing the symptoms instead of the root issue.

For example say women start becoming bitchy and hostile towards men.

The response is instead of taking a stand together against this bad behavior and bringing it under control men instead developed a whole system to navigate the bad behavior and still succeed with women regardless.

Then they competed with each other to see who was best at it and turned against each other instead of against poor female behavior.They became enablers.

Instead of just forcing women to stop acting like that by removing themselves until they got their act together.

Which trust me they would have if the massive majority of men had stood firm and all rejected it until women came back with a better attitude towards them.

But they didn't do that.

And the few men who did do it wouldn't matter since the massive majority would still enable the bad behavior.

It'd be like if starbucks started charging $10 for a cup of coffee and 99% of their business complained but still kept coming back and buying the coffee regardless.

That 1% who stopped coming and took a stand wouldn't matter since 99% are still enabling the absurd prices.

But if 99% of starbucks customer base protested and stood together and boycotted starbucks and refused to come buy their coffee anymore until they returned it to the original price,they would be forced to drop the prices to keep their business running and the prices would become fair again.

In the same way men became enablers of bad female behavior.They failed to be leaders and thus they had to keep finding coping strategies for bad female behavior instead of stopping the bad behavior in the first place.

That's what PUA,etc was.It didn't stop bad female behavior.It was just a coping mechanism instead of addressing the root issue.

This is also why no positive change is happening for men or mens rights.Because men won't stand together and keep stabbing each other in the back.


----------



## AnOminous (Jan 11, 2016)

SlayerOfTyranny said:


> Lets put it this way.



Quit doubleposting you fucking tard.  You can edit your posts.


----------



## Vitriol (Jan 11, 2016)

SlayerOfTyranny said:


> There is definitely a war on men,men's rights,masculinity,and young boys going on in the world today.
> 
> It's very obvious and plain to see.
> 
> ...


This is ridiculous hyperbole worthy of the loveshy forum- there is no war on men and feminists don't control the world. 

There are a handful of areas men are disadvantaged in and a handful women are disadvantaged in. 

The reason most men aren't United into some grand patriarchal restoration movement is most men are perfectly happy with the status quo and not disadvantaged in their day to day lives.

PUA isn't coping- its just people preying on a certain type of insecure women. They have existed since long before feminism: see the Georgian Dandy or venetian duelling class.


----------



## SlayerOfTyranny (Jan 11, 2016)

Short version:

Men and women do not have the same nature.When you try to make women like men and men like women (what is currently happening) it results in a dysfunctional relationship between the two.Thus the interaction between the two stops being symbiotic and instead becomes antagonistic.Men and women must compete with one another instead of support one another.This leads to unhappiness and dissatisfaction for both parties.

Long version:



> This is ridiculous hyperbole worthy of the loveshy forum- there is no war on men and feminists don't control the world.



The war on men is all around you.It's not hard to see.

I didn't claim that feminists control the world.

But they are the dominant ideology in the modern world.They are not a authority of their own merit but they are supported by the actual authorities who support the ideology and enforce it.

Do you not believe that feminism reaches as far as the government and the courts?



> There are a handful of areas men are disadvantaged in and a handful women are disadvantaged in.



I can tell you plenty of areas where men are disadvantaged.

What areas can you tell me where women are disadvantaged?



> The reason most men aren't United into some grand patriarchal restoration movement is most men are perfectly happy with the status quo and not disadvantaged in their day to day lives.



Are you sure that you speak for all men?

I think there might be alot more male dissatisfaction than you think and it is only growing.

Additionally just because men are not acting in unified open revolt does not indicate satisfaction.

It indicates tolerance which is not the same thing.

The general population usually has to be pushed extremely far before they will band together and actively revolt against authority.But they might have been very dissatisfied long before that.

Alot of men I don't think even intellectually understand the problem nor are they even aware that there is an alternative.They might intuitively feel that something is off but don't know what exactly.

Many of them probably don't even realize that there is an alternative and that this is not normal or how things are supposed to be.They just it accept it as how things are without realizing that things could be different.

They accept it not because it's good but because they've never known any different.

Kind of like a isolated person who was born a slave and raised to believe that was what they are because that's all they've been exposed to.

The thought that they could be the same as their slave masters never occurred to them.

It is far more powerful to control a person's mind than to control their physical body.

Additionally I dislike the use of the word "patriarchal" here because that is a misrepresentation of what I was talking about.

I wasn't talking about men establishing control and subjugation of women.I was simply talking about men expecting respect and fair treatment from women.

I'm sure you wouldn't be against women demanding to be treated respectfully by men.So what's wrong with men expecting women to treat them with respect as well?



> PUA isn't coping- its just people preying on a certain type of insecure women. They have existed since long before feminism: see the Georgian Dandy or venetian duelling class.



PUA is very natural in a hookup culture which is what we have.

Additionally "preying" I think is a convenient simplification of a much much larger issue/subject that has far more depth and complexity than what you are trying to reduce it to here.

I also dislike the seeming one sidedness you are creating here because you are ignoring the modern reality of female-male interaction.You are making it sound like only men can be the predators in this environment whereas the predation is two sided and many men are *forced *to resort to it in self protection or so it seems to them.

Preying would presume that women are following a functional correct model while PUA is abusing and manipulating that model for it's own selfish purposes.

But the truth is women are following a dysfunctional model as well so PUA becomes the male counter dysfunctional model.

Men and women become subverted from their normal symbiotic mutually beneficiary relationship into one of conflict and competition.

The thing you must understand is that the dynamic between men and women now is less of a necessity with a higher purpose but rather a selfish endeavor with no higher purpose.

The purpose is self oriented rather than responsibility oriented.

Under extreme feminism women no longer *need *men and functionally speaking they *are *men.

Therefore things become a sport rather than a necessity with obligations on both sides.The end goal of the sport is hedonism and self indulgence.It serves no other function.

Although on the surface this may seem liberating and freeing it is ultimately a recipe for hollow existence devoid of purpose and meaning which is ultimately unsatisfying and unhappy.

For whatever reason that is just how humans and the world works.Hedonism is seductive and enticing but ultimately rots and destroys your soul and will consume all those who fall into it's lure.

Men *need *a purpose.They *need *to be needed.When you take that from them as extreme feminism does they invent a whole new dysfunctional system to deal with the void.

The new system is all about being a irresponsible douchebag and fucking as many girls as you can.The more and the hotter they are the better.This is the new source of meaning and purpose.This *is *the new masculinity.

Remember too that many men no longer have masculine male role models or mentors.They do not have men who they look up to and respect who guide them in a appropriate direction.Many no longer have a father or if they do he is not strong.They have nothing and no one setting them on the right path so they fall prey to false masculinity.

Since men have no purpose and meaning in a modern society they must develop an artificial one.

The new purpose becomes women.Everything revolves around them under the new system.Mens identity becomes tied to women and success with them or lack thereof.There is no personal integrity.There is no higher purpose or meaning than women.Women become the definition of a man and his life.

This is anti masculinity and it is also anti male leadership.

Women are always wondering what is wrong with men these days.But they don't realize that they cannot have their cake and eat it too.They can't say they want to be treated like a woman if they want to be and act and fill the role of a man.Women want to be men but they also want to be women simultaneously but it does not work that way.They can only have one or the other but not both simultaneously.

The attempt to do so only leads to great frustration and overall dissatisfaction for both parties.


----------



## Marvin (Jan 11, 2016)

SlayerOfTyranny said:


> Men and women do not have the same nature.


Your whole post hinges on this point.

In what ways do men and women have different natures? How can this be quantified?


----------



## yasscat (Jan 11, 2016)

SlayerOfTyranny said:


> The new purpose becomes women.Everything revolves around them under the new system.Mens identity becomes tied to women and success with them or lack thereof.There is no personal integrity.There is no higher purpose or meaning than women.Women become the definition of a man and his life.
> 
> This is anti masculinity and it is also anti male leadership.


----------



## Ariel (Jan 11, 2016)

SlayerOfTyranny said:


> Short version:
> 
> Men and women do not have the same nature.When you try to make women like men and men like women (what is currently happening) it results in a dysfunctional relationship between the two.Thus the interaction between the two stops being symbiotic and instead becomes antagonistic.Men and women must compete with one another instead of support one another.This leads to unhappiness and dissatisfaction for both parties.
> 
> ...



You would have a much better chance of losing your virginity if you did something more productive than autistic shitposting about how evil women are. 

Also why are the guys who have the least experience with women (I mean in all contexts) the ones who claim to know the most about them?


----------



## EI 903 (Jan 12, 2016)

Ariel said:


> Also why are the guys who have the least experience with women (I mean in all contexts) the ones who claim to know the most about them?



Dunning-Kruger effect in action.


----------



## Vitriol (Jan 12, 2016)

SlayerOfTyranny said:


> The war on men is all around you.It's not hard to see.
> 
> I didn't claim that feminists control the world.
> 
> ...


Having worked in both I can fundamentally say no. The concept that women are equal to men certainly does but concepts of an oppresive patriarchy and collectivist male privilege which need balanced out  certainly don't. These concepts along with challenging conventional families are central to modern feminist doctrine and are rejected by courts and govts across the West, indeed most western countries actively encourage traditional families with tax breaks etc.



SlayerOfTyranny said:


> What


The vast majority of workplace sexual harassment cases I have taken were for female clients, violent rapes likewise.

And I realise this is not the case in the US but here divorce laws will often leave a woman in poverty and relying on govt hand outs.

Thats not to say men dont suffer disproportionately for other things and lose out oncustody rulings as opposed to financial settlement but nonetheless two disadvantages off the top of my head. I'm sure our female users can give you more.



SlayerOfTyranny said:


> PUA is very natural in a hookup culture which is what we have.
> 
> Additionally "preying" I think is a convenient simplification of a much much larger issue/subject that has far more depth and complexity than what you are trying to reduce it to here.
> 
> ...


You're projecting here; I said PUA are arseholes whose MO of preying on insecure women long predates the rise of feminism and the 'dysfunctional model' of our culture .  What you've written there is essentially summed up as claiming PUA is a natural reaction to modern culture. It clearly isn't when they existed in Georgian London, Renaissance Italy, bourbon France etc etc.

I wasn't implying anything about womans behavior that was pure invention on your part. Female equivalents to PUA have also existed throughout history. In both sexes its predatory individuals taking advantage of insecurities of weaker people.

It cannot be a reaction to modern culture because it is not a modern phenomenon and has existed as long as people have.



SlayerOfTyranny said:


> I'm sure you wouldn't be against women demanding to be treated respectfully by men.So what's wrong with men expecting women to treat them with respect as well?



Men do get equal respect from women though- or rather strong men and strong women alike are respected whereas those who are weaker in both sexes are susceptible to being bullied and disrespected.



SlayerOfTyranny said:


> Under extreme feminism women no longer *need *men and functionally speaking they *are *men.



I think answering this part succinctly dismisses all your latter analysis.

Extreme feminists are not in control so whatever your theories are on such a society is irrelevant.

The vast majority of men and women need and rely on each other and women do not become 'functionally male' hence why the very misleading pay gap argument exists and why the vast majority of out of court custody battles go to the mother.

Women when offered the choice often still pick what would once have been considered feminine roles- even when it is to their detriment financially- the vast majority of stay at hone parents are mums.

And even if your theory about a masculine 'need' to be relied upon was accurate, and I see no evidence it is, men are still relied on in the modern family. Where the burden is shared across too parents being successful in that supposed need becomes easier.

It is true however that with women freer to chose their husbands in the past men who through toxic personality or unfortunate genetics will find it far harder to find an attractive wife or partner. They then typically seem to retreat to the Internet, congregate and complain that the problem is with women and not with themselves.

Likewise having freedom to pick a partner I don't date fat women or attention whores, I have no doubt this isn't an unusual bias for successful young professionals and I also don't doubt there is a corresponding link to so many extreme feminists fitting that bill. You know people who retreat to the Internet, congregate and then blame men for all their problems when really the source of their difficulties are their own failings.


I was serious when I said your hyperbole is better suited to the loveshy sub, this sub was intended as a place where kiwis could discuss issues between friends without the extreme views of cows making normal discussion impossible.
I'm no SJW and you can read what I think of feminist theory of maleness further up the thread but I am considering sending you back to that subforum as the argument you are advancing seems to match with the ones there and is therefore imo better suited to that sub.


----------



## Asandy31 (Jan 12, 2016)

The men's rights movement is very similar to the faux transgender movement, it's just a bunch of dumb dudes who are mad because a woman's role in society is a lot more fluid.


----------



## PantsOfDesire (Jan 13, 2016)

Marvin said:


> Your whole post hinges on this point.
> 
> In what ways do men and women have different natures? How can this be quantified?



Without commenting on the other points @SlayerOfTyranny made, I would agree that it's reasonable to expect there would be quantifiable differences observable in large enough groups. It's difficult to imagine that evolutionary pressures wouldn't have lead something a bit more than differences in muscle mass and reproductive organs. Drives that are selected for reproduction aren't ring-fenced to that particular area - they will spill over in to other areas. Why do women, in countries where equality is rated highly, have less of an interest in STEM fields? Is mating for life more advantage for women than it is for men and, if so, would this not influence other aspects of life outside of mating? Autism is more prevalent in men than women, and the evolutionary decision to make less of an investment in physical strength for women is presumably compensated for somewhere.

Differences in nature inevitable for the genders. We need to quantify these attributes and accept that group-level differences aren't set in stone for individuals. There is a biological war, because that's how we find fit mates. This doesn't mean we're in some kind of bizarre war for domination - if anything men and women are fighting together to try to avoid creating generation of Chris Chans. The differences create conflicts, as it does in conflicts between intellect and strength in how society values and rewards these traits. Where there is a field that women are less drawn to, whether by nature or nurture, there will be conflicts when that field is particularly prestigious. Feminists are not calling for parity in unpleasant or dangerous yet well paid jobs. Equality of opportunity seems the only solution, but applied without the expectation that we'd see gender parity in uptake. This is where I'd agree that quotas and affirmative action are bullshit.

I've read Red Pill and saw there the other side of the radical feminist coin. The majority of men and women get along fine. It's the fringe nutters that need to be tackled, on both sides, and occasionally milked. There are differences, and most men and women quite enjoy those differences without needing to fetishise them or condemn an entire gender as being toxic or emotionally unstable.


----------



## Andy27 (Jan 13, 2016)

SlayerOfTyranny said:


> But if a great leader can arise who can unite the men in mass opposition it will be huge.



And now I can't stop thinking Roosh V with a Stalin mustache.


----------



## Chemical snorfare (Jan 16, 2016)

there are many men (and women) doing excellent work like setting up shelters and hotlines for male victims of domestic and sexual violence, campaigning for male suicide to be given broader coverage and pushing legislators to view the family unit as inclusive of men's roles.

One of the writers/ campaigners I follow is Ally Fogg of the Guardian and FtB, who (as part of a wider group) recently forced the Director of Public Prosecutions to admit in the figures for "sexual violence against women and girls", approx 12% of the overall number was made up of reported crimes against men and boys. Although the DPP Alison Saunders finally admitted the inclusion she did not change the title of the report, and I believe became only the second DPP to ever be censured.

The thing is , the title MRA has become so poisoned by loveshys and PUAs who blame women (or more likely their mothers) for all their problems, that decent campaigners that want to work alongside feminists as allies wont touch it with a barge pole.


----------



## AnOminous (Jan 16, 2016)

This thread is based on the false premise that sane people and absolute morons can actually have a sensible conversation.


----------



## SlayerOfTyranny (Jan 17, 2016)

> Your whole post hinges on this point.
> 
> In what ways do men and women have different natures? How can this be quantified?



Good question.

I don't profess to have all the answers or have everything figured.My only motive is truth and understanding.If I discover that my views are wrong and a higher better understanding exists then I will drop them.

Obviously I am not going to respond in detail out of respect for this thread but to just give you a very brief and short answer:

Despite what people believe and are free to do so alot of my thoughts regarding women come from years of personal experience with them.That personal experience awakened me to alot of things that I would have never thought or understood without it.And that personal experience certainly showed me that the whole concept of "women/men are equal and that's how it should be" was certainly not the whole story.

The full understanding of it is something that is still in question but I know in my gut and from my own life that something is not right and that there is far more to the story.I intend to go down the rabbit hole to best of my abilities and see what I will find.There is still tremendous work to be done.



> I was serious when I said your hyperbole is better suited to the loveshy sub, this sub was intended as a place where kiwis could discuss issues between friends without the extreme views of cows making normal discussion impossible.
> I'm no SJW and you can read what I think of feminist theory of maleness further up the thread but I am considering sending you back to that subforum as the argument you are advancing seems to match with the ones there and is therefore imo better suited to that sub.



Well I will leave it at that then.


----------



## Sweetpeaa (Feb 8, 2021)

A reddit mens-lib guys re.tardedness displayed in all its glory. And this has to be the hundredth time I've read about the ''Turkey baster'' urban legend. These guys believe it though.


----------



## TFT-A9 (Feb 8, 2021)

Sweetpeaa said:


> View attachment 1906417
> 
> A reddit mens-lib guys re.tardedness displayed in all its glory. And this has to be the hundredth time I've read about the ''Turkey baster'' urban legend. These guys believe it though.


So you necro'd this thread to put up a screencap of a Reddit post I know I saw floating around a while ago.

Very cool.


----------



## Terrorist (Feb 8, 2021)

They're whiny pussies who took the exact wrong conclusion from male-female double standards: They want to be treated with the same kid gloves women are. The feminists are more man than them in a way, since they take the initiative to subvert institutions instead of just complaining about them. If men historically had the temperament of MRAs, we'd still be hunter gatherers.


----------



## Johan Schmidt (Feb 8, 2021)

Terrorist said:


> They're whiny pussies who took the exact wrong conclusion from male-female double standards: They want to be treated with the same kid gloves women are. The feminists are more man than them in a way, since they take the initiative to subvert institutions instead of just complaining about them. If men historically had the temperament of MRAs, we'd still be hunter gatherers.


Yeah. You should hold yourself to as high standards as you can, and try and reach them. Not sit in the corner crying about the mean girls. 

Sure the systems kinda fucked against men; but the simple solution is not to for insane harpy women, and try and find someone loving and normal to build a life with. 

Protip: If all the women you are in relationships with are cunts, the problem might not be the _women_.


----------



## Terrorist (Feb 9, 2021)

Johan Schmidt said:


> Yeah. You should hold yourself to as high standards as you can, and try and reach them. Not sit in the corner crying about the mean girls.
> 
> Sure the systems kinda fucked against men; but the simple solution is not to for insane harpy women, and try and find someone loving and normal to build a life with.
> 
> Protip: If all the women you are in relationships with are cunts, the problem might not be the _women_.


The way it used to work was: Men were held to higher standards than women because they had the responsibility to lead women and society. Women were held to their own set of standards, which were also strict, but with a narrower range of responsibilities subordinate to male leadership. Women had fewer responsibilities (though important ones) but fewer rights in turn.

The MRA fantasy is to have greater rights without taking greater responsibilities, which is how feminists/women at their worst think.


----------



## Crunchy Leaf (Feb 9, 2021)

Terrorist said:


> They're whiny pussies who took the exact wrong conclusion from male-female double standards: They want to be treated with the same kid gloves women are. The feminists are more man than them in a way, since they take the initiative to subvert institutions instead of just complaining about them. If men historically had the temperament of MRAs, we'd still be hunter gatherers.


Like most feminists, men’s rights activists care disproportionately about issue that affect the well to do.

Also, you can have a traditional marriage if you can offer what traditional girls want: a stable job, being religious (and not pretending to be to get girls), and being a virgin or at least having a low partner count.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Feb 9, 2021)

Sweetpeaa said:


> View attachment 1906417
> 
> A reddit mens-lib guys re.tardedness displayed in all its glory. And this has to be the hundredth time I've read about the ''Turkey baster'' urban legend. These guys believe it though.




I like that the part that you don't believe is proven in court. 

Court rulings are urban legends now, I suppose.



			http://web.archive.org/web/20050227051540/http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050224/D88F19S80.html


----------



## Niggernerd (Feb 9, 2021)

MGTOW are just faggots who couldn't get their dicks wet after fucking that weird girl from school.


----------



## biozeminadae1 (Feb 9, 2021)

Until men start bombing and killing in the name of men's rights, they aren't getting anywhere.

"overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and eliminate the male sex."
- Ultimate goal of feminism

The person who wrote that tried to murder Andy Warhol.


----------



## Sweetpeaa (Feb 9, 2021)

biozeminadae1 said:


> Until men start bombing and killing in the name of men's rights, they aren't getting anywhere.
> 
> "overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and eliminate the male sex."
> - Ultimate goal of feminism
> ...



And the thing is most men seem to be doing just fine with women. Mens lib, MGTOW and incels are not representative of the average male thinker. These guys are combination of angry spergs, mentally ill and disgruntled baby daddies. The have always been around (even back to the guy who attempted to kill Andy Warhol). But now they have their social media platforms to get together and bask in their own stupid juices.


----------



## biozeminadae1 (Feb 9, 2021)

Sweetpeaa said:


> And the thing is most men seem to be doing just fine with women. Mens lib, MGTOW and incels are not representative of the average male thinker. These guys are combination of angry spergs, mentally ill and disgruntled baby daddies. The have always been around (even back to the guy who attempted to kill Andy Warhol). But now they have their social media platforms to get together and bask in their own stupid juices.


A guy, huh? That guy was a woman, who spent only three years in jail. She also injured another bystander and attempted murder against another, but her gun jammed.

When the social, economic and political system unilaterally favours women, obviously men are going to take a backseat.


----------



## A Thick Piece of Meat (Feb 9, 2021)

i've never seen one


----------



## TFT-A9 (Feb 9, 2021)

Sweetpeaa said:


> And the thing is most men seem to be doing just fine with women. Mens lib, MGTOW and incels are not representative of the average male thinker. These guys are combination of angry spergs, mentally ill and disgruntled baby daddies. The have always been around (even back to the guy who attempted to kill Andy Warhol). But now they have their social media platforms to get together and bask in their own stupid juices.


"guy"

I don't think Valerie would appreciate that label


----------

