MRAs, what is your opinion of Return of Kings?

Frankly_No · 2013-10-13T04:54:43+00:00

They are part of the 'manosphere', which some consider the MHRM movement to be a part of (often feminists trying to conflate us with traditionalists who promote gender roles), although we have a very complicated relationship with it. I have read a few articles, some make good points and others are too similar to /TheRedPill for me (like the points you mention). Overall I recommend MRAs steer clear of it.

Edit: hey, I just found a recent AVfM article on this very topic. You can learn more about them from an MRA perspective (or MHRA as AVfM prefers) here. To summarize the article they criticize Return of Kings for (legitimate) fat shaming and disavow connections between them and the MHRM.

YetAnotherCommenter · 2013-10-13T06:40:44+00:00

Return Of Kings is a traditionalist/gender-conservative website. It approves of traditional gender roles (or more correctly their understanding of traditional gender roles).

RoK don't understand that under traditional gender roles, there were very few "Kings" and oh-so-many serfs.

The MRM is not affiliated with them. The MRM wants to abandon the traditional gender system in favor of allowing individuals to make their own choices and live by their own preferences.

RoK is part of the problem - it glamorizes and sugar-coats (or perhaps testosterone-coats) the rigid, controlling, restrictive norms and demands men have to wrangle with.

They're brutally sexist and homophobic, too. The MRM (the actual MRM, not the "man up, pussies!" manosphere) is against both sexism and discrimination against non-heterosexuals.

Let's have a look at RoK's "community beliefs" -

"1. Men and women are genetically different, both physically and mentally. Sex roles evolved in all mammals. Humans are not exempt."

Of course men and women are biologically different, but biology doesn't create discrete categories and by itself it does not impose moral demands. Intersex and transgendered people (and transgenderism has been demonstrated to have a biological basis - specifically the sexual development of the brain) exist. Whilst cisgendered-male and cisgendered-female are the most common biological gender configurations, not everyone falls into these categories. The categories exist because of human abstraction from a biological spectrum (albiet an heavily 'clustered' spectrum), they are not mind-independently given. RoK thus completely fail to understand evolutionary biology in the first place. Not only that, but if sex roles were biologically destined, then gender-nonconformism would not be as common as it is; the average woman may have on average more personality traits A, B and C than the average man, but that doesn't mandate women Staying In The Kitchen.

"2. Women are sluts if they sleep around, but men are not. This fact is due to the biological differences between men and women."

Wrong. "Sluttiness" isn't about sleeping around. A "slut" is a woman who undersells the pussy cartel by putting out to unworthy men (i.e. she cheapens herself by giving men something without getting a perceived 'equivalent exchange'). Note that it is women who slut-shame other women; men generally want sex and thus like "sluts" because most men find having to pay for five dates before getting their first blowjob a little bit frustrating.

If a woman sleeps around with worthy men, she's not a "slut." If a woman cheats on a "less worthy" man with a "more worthy" man she might be a treacherous bitch but she's not a "slut" because she's trading up.

Yet again, even IF we accept that men are evolutionarily primed to sleep around and women are evolutionarily primed to be 'picky' with mates, this doesn't impose a moral obligation for men to sleep around and women to be picky. Plus, sex is not the same thing as reproducing.

"3. Men will opt out of monogamy and reproduction if there are no incentives to engage in them."

I agree with this. People generally don't do things without some sort of incentive. That said, this seems to contradict Point 2 - if men are biologically wired to sleep around, then shouldn't male monogamy be immoral by RoK's logic? After all, it "goes against nature" according to their premises.

"4. Past traditions and rituals that evolved alongside humanity served a net benefit to the family unit."

Which specific traditions and rituals? No answer is provided. Just because something is traditional doesn't mean it is necessarily good or right or reasonable. Traditions which are actually beneficial should be retained, but not all traditions are beneficial to everyone (or every family) - as such, traditions should be questioned and experimented with and retained where beneficial, discarded otherwise. Tradition is not infallible.

"5. Testosterone is the biological cause for masculinity. Environmental changes that reduce the hormone’s concentration in men will cause them to be weaker and more feminine."

Oversimplification of biology. Not only that but there is evidence that angry, aggressive men sometimes have lower concentrations of testosterone. RoK need to study the biology of sexual development in much more detail.

"6. A woman’s value is mainly determined by her fertility and beauty. A man’s value is mainly determined by his resources, intellect, and character."

Like I said, RoK is a trad-con site. However, note that they value women as fertility objects, but men by intellect and character. This is Cafeteria Traditionalism... traditional gender roles typically valued men in terms of physical prowess and often look down on intellectual males as "lesser men." Not only that, but "character" is the issue of ethics - by excluding women from ethics, RoK excludes women from agency and accountability and thus basically says that if a woman does something evil, that's okay, since women aren't moral agents and all that matters is whether or not she's pretty and fertile.

Traditionalism for women, Cafeteria Traditionalism for men. I get a sneaking suspicion that the men behind RoK actually aren't physically "alpha males" and thus are resentful and are redefining traditional masculinity to make it more acceptable to their own characteristics... that said, I also get a sneaking suspicion that the men behind RoK aren't particularly intellectual either.

"7. Elimination of traditional gender roles and the promotion of unlimited mating choice in women unleashes their promiscuity and other negative behaviors that block family formation."

Not everyone accepts that the end goal of gender norms should be family formation (or more correctly, forming heterosexual nuclear families). Not everyone is suited for hetero-monogamy (note also that by RoK's biological logic, men aren't suited for monogamy in the first place so why should they form families?). Not only that, but the biological theory of female mating behavior which RoK seems to rely upon (i.e. Hypergamy) doesn't argue that women are promiscuous (it in fact argues men are promiscuous and that women are picky).

Note the complete inconsistency here... "men and women should follow their evolutionary natures except where it impedes family formation, in which case they should be brutally oppressed by gender roles." They go between "give into biology" and "repress those fleshly urges!" repeatedly. They should choose which side to take... animalism or asceticism.. and stop changing their minds.

"8. Socialism, feminism, and cultural Marxism cause societies to decline because they destroy the family unit, decrease the fertility rate, and require large entitlements that impoverish the state."

As a libertarian who opposes Socialism, Radical Second Wave and Third Wave feminism, and "cultural Marxism" (i.e. the Frankfurt School of Marxist Critical Theory), you'd expect me to be sympathetic here, but I am not because this is a massively oversimplified and distorted analysis. Not only that, but it is confusing Socialism with Social Democracy/Welfare Statism (many early Socialists and Marxists were quite adamant that "he who does not work shall not eat" so they scarcely supported the entitlement state).

Yes, some entitlement policies have broken up families, many of which would've been better off had they stayed together. However, as stated before, traditional heteromonogamous nuclear families, whilst a perfectly valid family model, are not for everyone and should not be forced upon people.

In conclusion, RoK is utterly wrongheaded.

Vegemeister · 2013-10-13T06:27:03+00:00

They appear to be traditionalists. Traditionalism actually has less in common with the MRM than the MRM has with feminism.

sens2t2vethug · 2013-10-13T05:02:04+00:00

It's useful (and entertaining) to see what they think of us:

As utopians, MRAs don’t much care about any social institution for its own traditional role, but only insofar as it promotes ‘gender equality.’ Its goal is to remake every institution in society until androgyny of the sexes is attained and expected, and the ‘oppression’ of men has ceased. I’ve yet to meet any MRAs in person, so it’s hard to understand exactly why they’re so hostile to traditional sex roles. But they bear an uncanny resemblance to feminists because they resent the duties and limits that their sex imposes.

They are like fat chicks trying to redefine beauty to mean vile obesity. They are pariahs. Which would be fine, if they would simply leave everyone else alone, and carry on amongst themselves. Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) do exactly that, for which they have my respect. But like fat chicks and feminists, MRAs are too insecure for that; they desperately crave the wider society’s approval. They can’t bear to go off on their own while society writes them off. So they try to make pariahdom the new normal. The traditional forms of beauty and virtue become their sworn enemy.

For instance, there is a story posted on the website of the National Center For Men, of one man’s disappointment that even hardcore feminists object to him wearing skirts, even as they only wear pants.

The author of this particular article confuses Michael Kimmel for an MRA when of course he's not. But they also reference Paul Elam and AVfM, and I think their general summary of the MRM is fairly accurate.

The only good article I found on the site was this one.

dakru · 2013-10-13T04:33:47+00:00

They have some good stuff here and there but a lot of it is deliberately inflammatory. While I don't think there's anything wrong with a man (or a woman) not wanting to date promiscuous people, I don't think it's right to attack people just because they have a trait (like promiscuity) that makes you not want to date them. It's your preference and it's fine to have it, but don't act as if anyone has any moral obligation to follow it.

sfblue · 2013-10-13T04:12:44+00:00

Ew. My opinion is ew. I don't think it's really on the same page as the men's rights movements. It's more /r/theredpill. It promotes confining gender roles(which MRAs are fighting against) and enormous double standards. Also it's often stupid and silly.

nigglereddit · 2013-10-13T10:14:26+00:00

RoK is just a variation (or derivative?) of the "Red Pill" movement. Which could work with MRA ideas, but they refuse to, because in their head, your a manbitch if you aren't interested in pickup, bodybuilding, and self-help.

At the end of the day, they are reactions to the same problem. TRP, /seduction, MRA all stem from unhappiness with men's status in society. They all stem from feeling weak and un-empowered, rather than proud of what you are. They just differ about what to do with it. In RoKs eyes, we should all act like "alphas" and do the behaviors associated with high testosterone, which will translate to us being happy.

In MRAs eyes, we should make society a better place. And then, if you want to go "fuck bitches" and brag about it on internet forums, then you can do at least do it knowing that you will get a fair trail if accused of rape, you will not fall victim to paternity fraud or entrapment, etc.

MRA ideas seek to make society better for men who subscribe to any belief, even feminist men. Ultimately, ideas like balanced legal systems, healthcare systems, societal perceptions of masculinity, double standards, etc would benefit both feminist men, RoK men, PUAs, conservatives, liberals, everyone. And if MRA does make a difference in society, then RoK will benefit as well, despite their horrible attitude towards those who do not drink their kool-aid.

2013-10-13T04:25:25+00:00

In my experience, they tend to promote a traditionalist conservative agenda in regards to gender politics. I staunchly oppose TradCons, and therefore I am against the site and its message.

2013-10-13T06:51:10+00:00

Occasional good article and presents some uncomfortable truths at times; completely misses the point with deliberately inflammatory click bait most of the time.

Read it if you like it, but as with anything pua related just take it with a grain of salt. Understand its mostly hyperbole and chest thumping disguised as "legitimate."

AlexReynard · 2013-10-13T08:15:46+00:00

I like this article: http://www.returnofkings.com/11423/lessons-learned-from-the-fast-and-the-furious Good points there.

That said, the About page you linked to made me wince. Just because gender roles may have helped us survive in the past doesn't mean they are the only social structure we should ever allow. Biological/traditional gender roles exist for the purpose of making sure we reproduce a lot. We can choose a new goal now. We have the ability now to find new ways to arrange society that takes into account the desires of individuals as well as the needs of a larger society. And even if I may agree with them on some points about the failures of current social engineering, that's absolutely no reason not to try different social engineering.

What I see on that About page is this type of thinking: "Things aren't perfect now. Rather than consider the benefits to our progress, let's scrap it all completely. The past had some advantages, so let's move backwards into the past." No. No species survives by refusing to adapt. We have progressed beyond the need for biological/tradiional gender roles, period. The can of worms is open. We cannot go back to the past; our only hope is to learn from the past, learn from our failures now, and create something new and better.

sfblue · 2013-10-13T04:21:21+00:00

I read a few links and it is just like the horrible Gawker websites.

The business model is saying absolutely idiotic, bigoted things to get angry people to give them more pageviews.

CosmicKeys · 2013-10-13T10:02:10+00:00

To be honest I wish people would just stop paying attention to them, their mask slips further every day, they are out to troll and not much more. There is no substance behind the offence.

substance_dualism · 2013-10-13T08:52:57+00:00

The link is an obvious troll.

I will save link for later trolling activities.

guywithaccount · 2013-10-14T00:04:24+00:00

I think I've read a few pages on that site that were linked here or elsewhere, and my take was that the author sounded like a bit of an extremist and a red piller. Can't really say more than that without sifting through the site.

Demonspawn · 2013-10-13T07:32:41+00:00

supports sensible equality

I believe that men and women are inherently different

These two beliefs contradict each other. If you believe men and women are different, then there is no equality which can be found. In fact, considering that society sees women as less disposable than men, seeking equality places women above men.

If you believe that men and women are inherently different, than socially enforced gender roles is the only logical choice in how to set up society.

"6. A woman’s value is mainly determined by her fertility and beauty. A man’s value is mainly determined by his resources, intellect, and character."

Yes. This is reality. Men don't choose women to date based on their job, income, or accomplishments. Men choose based on beauty (which strongly correlates with signs of fertility). You don't have to like it, but it's the way the world works.

You're a woman doctor that cured cancer? Ok.. fine. Whatever. I'm not saying that's not great, but it doesn't make any man want to date you any more than before you did.

Mytecacc · 2013-10-13T10:16:27+00:00

I think its a way of making money from men that don't know much about women, and men they were brought up by single mothers.

The promise of sex, secret knowledge and omnipotence is seductive and at least one study has shown that sexually marginalized men are more likely to buy into resentment and name calling of women that are not, so ROK is good bait.

rightsbot · 2013-10-13T04:08:16+00:00

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

Title	MRAs, what is your opinion of Return of Kings?
Author	sfblue
Upvotes	20
Comments	67
Date	October 13, 2013 4:06 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1oc2sv/mras_what_is_your_opinion_of_return_of_kings/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/mras-what-is-your-opinion-of-return-of-kings.1161429 https://theredarchive.com/post/1161429

Comments