So what do you guys represent exactly?

YetAnotherCommenter · 2014-03-26T12:35:33+00:00

What would you say are the five pillars of your ideology?

I can boil mine down to three pillars:

1) Equal treatment under the law for both sexes

2) Recognizing society's gender system as a system where women are treated as innately precious objects and men are treated as innately disposable subjects

3) As a consequence of the above, working towards the recognition of women as beings with agency/minds and men as beings with innate value/dignity.

Also would you consider yourselves to be cultural Marxists to an extent?

I'm a libertarian individualist. I am not influenced by anything which has been produced by the Frankfurt School of Marxist Critical Theory (aka "Cultural Marxism").

What I mean by this for example is that when you look at the workplace death statistics where 95% are men, is your reaction that this is a natural phenomena where free individuals are choosing dangerous occupations and there is a natural tendency for men to favor them compared to women OR do you believe there is some oppressive cultural factor that should be corrected so that the gender ratio is 50/50?

Firstly, belief that culture influences workplace death rates (or, more broadly, the belief that gender norms are to at least some degree social constructs) is not the same thing as "cultural Marxism."

Cultural Marxism is one kind of social-constructivist ideology (specifically, it is a form of Marxism and thus would argue that gender norms are ultimately a product of Capitalism). There are other forms of social constructivism which are not Marxist.

As for my position regarding the workplace death rate... I think male disposability (i.e. the idea that we must keep the women safe at all costs BUT its okay if a few men die) is mostly a cultural/social thing, HOWEVER there is probably some biological influence involved. At the very least, the biological fact that women are the incubators of the next generation would influence culture towards (at least to some degree) being protective of women EVEN WITHOUT innate gendered tendencies of personality.

Are there overall gender tendencies in personality? At the level of statistical aggregate yes... but these are just overlapping bell-curves. There are no gender-exclusive personality traits. Additionally, sometimes the same trait is expressed differently between the sexes, but it is still fundamentally the same trait. Finally, the differences between individuals are more important than the difference between statistical averages.

BlindPelican · 2014-03-26T12:17:28+00:00

The MHRM isn't an ideology, really. It's a group of men and women who have seen particular issues and speak up about it.

If you check our sidebar, you'll find a host of issues that affect men in particular. These are the things the MHRM seeks to change.

This article provides an excellent list and citations for those issues. It might be a good place for you to start.

oneiorosgrip · 2014-03-26T15:27:07+00:00

You guys get a lot of bad press from my neck of the woods, usually there are claims such as: they want to disenfranchise/oppress women, they are the male counterpart of modern feminists (fabricating grievances and saying society needs to change to amend them) or that you are a bunch of insecure losers who are just bitter with women (I guess this would fit into the second charge also).

Feminists who oppose the men's rights movement have deliberately promoted those misconceptions for a few years. It's gone so far as to hit mainstream media, and at least one source has had to issue a retraction after repeating the lies.

My personal involvement in the movement can be summed up with this one image. There's a question in it. I'd like to see that question addressed by opponents of the movement. It would be very interesting to see what reason they think should have to exist before it's acceptable to give the human rights of men equal support to that which they offer women.

What would you say are the five pillars of your ideology?

This question is odd to me. Why do we need five? The point that human rights apply to all humans, not just one group, should be enough.

We do, however, have grievances related to that point. There are areas where men's human rights are infringed via systematic and often institutionalized discrimination. You can see some of those grievances listed in the sidebar to this sub, along with an answer to the next question that usually follows (why feminism is not a solution to men's issues.)

I've also written about some of those issues. Links to my writing on various sites are in the sidebar of the blog I linked to for that image. In particular, I've written about disparity in legal responses to intimate partner and sexual violence, and the political maneuvering that led to that disparity. Learning about that explains a lot about why feminists oppose the men's rights movement; a lot of legal issues men face trace back to feminist-lobbied discriminatory law and policy.

Also would you consider yourselves to be cultural Marxists to an extent? What I mean by this for example is that when you look at the workplace death statistics where 95% are men, is your reaction that this is a natural phenomena where free individuals are choosing dangerous occupations and there is a natural tendency for men to favor them compared to women OR do you believe there is some oppressive cultural factor that should be corrected so that the gender ratio is 50/50?

The act of citing workplace death stats began as a response to feminists promoting the myth that the gender "pay gap" found when weighing all full time workers' pay together represents a condition of women being paid less for the same work. It's cited along with several other factors which clearly show that the arrival at a wide gap (approximately 23 cents) is not done by comparing like with like, but is significantly affected by women's choices.

There have been numerous analyses of the "pay gap" claim which have soundly debunked the feminist narrative on this, yet feminist leaders continue to use the number and the claim as political fodder while lobbying for still more discriminatory and invasive law and policy. It has become apparent that the goal of such advocacy is not to achieve "equal pay for equal work," as claimed by its supporters, but instead "equal pay regardless."

Discussion on the workplace death gap illustrates the hypocrisy of that narrative, by showing an a workplace inequality that is ignored by self-titled proponents of workplace equality. It is a challenge to the reader to more carefully consider the argument. Is a group really for equality if they promote the belief that workers whose effort, contribution to the workplace, and risk to the self are higher should only receive pay for having lower risk, lower contribution to the workplace, and lower effort? Proponents of the wage gap myth are basically arguing exactly that.

DougDante · 2014-03-26T11:26:22+00:00

The accusations are false (and probably misandrist). Please see the FAQ.

rogerwatersbitch · 2014-03-26T12:25:16+00:00

The only ideology is that mens rights are worth fighting for. The MRM doesnt have silly notions like "patriarchy" or other nonsense.

sillymod · 2014-03-26T16:12:53+00:00

Have you bothered reading the sidebar?

saint2e · 2014-03-26T12:08:19+00:00

Essentially,

Men have problems too, and we'd like to address them or have them addressed independently/co-dependantly of women's issues.

Meaning we don't want to wait around for society to say, "okay, now we're ready to deal with your issues."

A lot of people are now recognizing that most men don't live in the lap of luxury. They have problems, too. But bringing them up or trying to address them usually is seen as one of two things:

1) anti-woman / anti-feminist (we differentiate between those two terms, but a lot of people don't). Trying to defend gross generalizations about men is seen as misogynistic. Take a look at the "don't be that guy" vs "don't be that girl" campaigns.

2) derailing women's issues (for an example of this, see any discussion or article on infant circumcision or the prevalence of male rape)

Personally I'm sick of being the bad guy by default because of this hanging thing I have between my legs. And because of the hanging thing, a lot of people think I don't get a say in the discussions that make me the bad guy.

pazz · 2014-03-26T12:45:52+00:00

I think the most succinct answer is that we are for equality and pointing out hypocrisy.

Sometimes equality is more controversial than other times. And I think some of the bad press on this sub can be attributed to a small group of angry men who are also attracted to the good parts of this sub. Anger makes everyone less rational and makes people say things they might not mean if they had time to process their thoughts clearly.

Time lessens all wounds.

2014-03-26T16:26:49+00:00

I thank you for asking these kinds of questions. I think the responses are covered well enough by other commenters for me below, so I do not feel the need to answer, but I did want to say that I am pleased that you felt comfortable with approaching this sub and asking us, rather than jumping some bandwagon or another from word of mouth.

You'll forgive our suspicions; a lot of people come here from SRS and AMR, and attempt to provoke negative responses so they can run home and say, "Look! I got the MRM nuts to says these things by asking loaded questions! Hilarious!"

I like to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who puts thought into their questions and prompts, and who willingly admits mistakes or missteps. That's not trolling - it's critical thinking.

oysterme · 2014-03-26T17:54:44+00:00

when you look at the workplace death statistics where 95% are men, is your reaction that this is a natural phenomena where free individuals are choosing dangerous occupations and there is a natural tendency for men to favor them compared to women OR do you believe there is some oppressive cultural factor that should be corrected so that the gender ratio is 50/50?

It's 93%, first of all.

Secondly, I'd say although men do choose to take harder jobs, they don't make these choices in a vacuum. There's a whole socialization process every boy has to go through that makes hard jobs seem "rough and tough" and appealing, and I think we'd be better off without that mindset.

The_Patriarchy · 2014-03-26T18:26:40+00:00

What would you say are the five pillars of your ideology?

The MRM has no overriding ideology beyond belief that men are disadvantaged in one way or another. It's not an "ism". There are beliefs that are more popular in the MRM, like anti-feminism, but there are MRAs who hold the opposite position as well (e.g. feminist MRAs), and they're just as entitled to the label "MRA" as anyone else.

MRA stands for "Men's Rights Advocate/Activist" (I prefer the former). It's a description of your actions, not your beliefs. As long as you advocate or engage in activism for the rights of men, then you're entitled to use that label for yourself. This is a double-edged sword as it allows a philosophically broad group of people to work together, but also allows extremists to tarnish the label.

As the movement grows, I believe you'll see more splinter-groups form that wish to distinguish themselves from the norms of the larger group (e.g. /r/theredpill). Those groups will likely have their own ideology from which you may be able to list your arbitrary "5 pillars".

Also would you consider yourselves to be cultural Marxists to an extent?

I'm opposed to Cultural Marxism/Frankfurt School bullshit.

What I mean by this for example is that when you look at the workplace death statistics where 95% are men, is your reaction that this is a natural phenomena where free individuals are choosing dangerous occupations and there is a natural tendency for men to favor them compared to women OR do you believe there is some oppressive cultural factor that should be corrected so that the gender ratio is 50/50?

I believe men (in general) are physically and mentally different from women. This naturally manifests in different choices (e.g. jobs, risky behaviors, etc.). I also believe that, in response to this difference, our society has established cultural norms which sometimes promote such choices. Generally I think this is benign, but it can sometimes be something which merits change. An example I believe merits such change would be the expectation that a man endanger himself to protect a woman, coupled with scorn for those who do not endanger themselves thusly.

Workplace fatalities are, I believe, a combination of these issues. Partly men are more willing to desire the high-reward/high-risk jobs that result in these fatalities. However, cultural factors such as the expectation that the man be the breadwinner and the horribly fucked labor market, can also push men into accepting such jobs even if they'd rather not do them because kids are expensive...and it's even more expensive to support a stay-at-home spouse. I believe we should treat both male and female stay-at-home spouses the same, and expect both parents (regardless of gender) financially support their family. I don't believe this would result in a 50/50 split across the board, but it would be less coercive for the outliers.

That isn't Cultural Marxism. CM is predicated on a reapplication of Marxian class-dynamics to non-economic classifications. For example, an MRA who promoted CM would suggest that, as a class, men are oppressed by women and women are privileged. They might suggest we live in a "matriarchy" or some other such nonsense. Their solution to this problem would likely be some sort of "revolution". But simply believing that there are unjust cultural factors at play does not make one a Cultural Marxist.

tactsweater · 2014-03-26T20:27:49+00:00

I'd actually be more or less fine with many of the downsides of being a man listed here. My real issue is that the prevailing mindset seems to paint men as living one big party, while women are perpetual victims. I don't expect all men's rights issues to be solved, even within my lifetime, but if they could be treated as real actual issues, rather than as punchlines, I'd call it a win. What I'd personally say I "represent" is equal attention paid to men's and women's issues.

2014-03-27T00:12:36+00:00

Soo.. I know that is probably a lot of information, but I have to point you towards Karen Straughan aka. Girlwriteswhat.

She is a bit of a superstar within the MRM, and what led me to abandon the label 'feminist'. Again, I know it's a lot, but she's interesting, thoughtful, eloquent and concise, check her out if you have the time.

mjsansai · 2014-03-26T14:22:34+00:00

Firstly and only we don't have an ideology nor dogma that we are committed too, over to you.

niggelprease · 2014-03-26T18:15:10+00:00

Also would you consider yourselves to be cultural Marxists to an extent? What I mean by this for example is that when you look at the workplace death statistics where 95% are men, is your reaction that this is a natural phenomena where free individuals are choosing dangerous occupations and there is a natural tendency for men to favor them compared to women OR do you believe there is some oppressive cultural factor that should be corrected so that the gender ratio is 50/50?

I believe it is a natural phenomenon that men will seek out riskier, better-paying jobs. I believe there are strong arguments from evolutionary psychology explaining why this happens. I don't think we can do anything to change that.

I believe that it is a joke and an insult how people in general don't really care when a man dies at work, but gets up in arms and demands something to change when a woman does. I believe that our gut reaction is to care more about women's safety, but that we should work to change that attitude. And I believe that if "something" has to change, that should happen where people are most at risk i.e. probably in those "men's workplaces".

aussietoads · 2014-03-26T23:58:05+00:00

"What would you say are the five pillars of your ideology?"

The men's rights movement is not an ideology, it is a movement of similar minded people who wish to address specific issues of legal inequality.

double-happiness · 2014-03-27T00:19:16+00:00

when you look at the workplace death statistics where 95% are men, is your reaction that this is a natural phenomena where free individuals are choosing dangerous occupations and there is a natural tendency for men to favor them compared to women OR do you believe there is some oppressive cultural factor that should be corrected so that the gender ratio is 50/50?

Personally I think the disparity is obviously rooted in physical differences, which are themselves amplified by cultural practices. Fertile women have the additional burden of menstruation, pregnancy and childbirth; they also have drastically lower rates of fecundity in terms of the number of children they can have, compared to men. It therefore increases survival rates for any given human population to protect fertile women and sacrifice men. (There is also a 'feedback loop' in terms of greater male physical labour leading to greater physical strength and hence to increased responsibility for physical labour).

do you believe there is some oppressive cultural factor that should be corrected so that the gender ratio is 50/50

I don't see a 50/50 gender ratio in workplace deaths as an important goal. I see a reduction in workplace deaths as an important goal. Crucially, it's not rich men who are dying in workplace accidents, it's poor ones. It's primarily poverty that drives people to take dangerous jobs, though 'machismo' provides a rationale and culture that often drives men further in that respect. I generally see poverty and social inequality as the 'great divide' in wider society, not gender. That is part of the reason for my own critical view of feminism.

Also, male 'disposability' is exacerbated by replaceability in the workplace, hence the need for strong trade unions who can starve companies of labour if they fail to protect the workforce, especially for unskilled workers.

unexpecteditem · 2014-03-27T00:37:12+00:00

The anti-Christ. And you?

rg57 · 2014-03-27T06:28:36+00:00

I've got one foot here, but not the other. Given the current split (in gender rights, not my legs) we absolutely need MRM, but I think the long-term solution has to be unified involving men, women, and others.

Speaking only for myself I see the principles as:

Equality generally, and in particular regardless of gender.
Protection for individual control over one's own body, from birth.
Freedom through elimination of strict or paranoid moral codes.
Reducing the disposability of people.
Promoting evidence-based rational viewpoints over others.

seego79 · 2014-03-27T23:10:39+00:00

there is no ideology.

equality and love for boys and men are all the goals we have.

rightsbot · 2014-03-26T11:20:16+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

DeltaSixActual · 2014-03-26T16:14:36+00:00

We represent pure awesomeness.

redandterrible · 2014-03-26T11:58:27+00:00

cultural Marxists

This isn't actually a thing. The Soviet Union collapsed sometime ago, in case people weren't paying attention.

Title	So what do you guys represent exactly?
Author	OMoraine
Upvotes	9
Comments	44
Date	March 26, 2014 11:19 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/21em1l/so_what_do_you_guys_represent_exactly/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/so-what-do-you-guys-represent-exactly.1002349 https://theredarchive.com/post/1002349

Comments