Not All MRAs Are Like That

I_FUCK_UP_RECIPES · 2013-09-30T12:05:10+00:00

Similarly, should the MRM be doing more self-policing

All advocacy groups should be doing as much self-policing as is possible without hampering their primary purpose (advocacy).

You'll never get them all and outsiders with an agenda will seize on the few who remain to discredit you, but it is not what your opponent says but rather what the audience sees and hears that matters.

If they say it and the audience isn't seeing it, they look like idiots. If they say it and the audience IS seeing it, you look like an idiot.

girlwriteswhat · 2013-09-30T13:11:16+00:00

You have to consider that at least online, MRM spaces are in general much less moderated than feminist spaces.

Take my channel on YT for instance. I have a strong non-censorship policy, and don't participate much in my comment section. Part of the reason I do not moderate comments is that the moment you have to approve a comment before it is visible, you are now responsible for that comment's existence in public. You are saying, essentially, that this particular comment is acceptable to you. Same applies, to a lesser degree, if you regularly delete offensive comments--the ones you don't delete, you are responsible for.

Because /r/mr uses a light touch in moderating comments, it can be assumed that the moderators and users do not find every visible comment "acceptable". In a feminist subreddit that is heavily moderated, the comments that are not deleted can be assumed to be "acceptable" to the mods and community. That is, if a comment is not deleted, that comment must be agreeable to them in some way.

A misogynist comment that is not deleted here is not reflective of the sentiment of the mods or community. A misandrist comment that is not deleted on /r/feminisms IS reflective of the sentiment of the mods and community.

This, to me, is more indicative that the presence of hateful or bigoted comments in feminist spaces is the bigger problem--because unlike here in r/mr or on my channel, if the mods or community disagreed with them or found them offensive, those comments would not be there at all.

SRSLovesGawker · 2013-09-30T12:22:36+00:00

You'll see that here. People going on a tear and being broadly demonizing of women in general get told pretty quick.

I would suggest there's an essential difference between MRA and feminists, however. Take any "gender studies" course in any liberal arts school and you'll still see the works of Solanas, Dworkin et al as part of required reading. Yes, every movement has its extremists, but not every movement requires new inductees to read and absorb the words of those most extreme members as part of the getting-to-know-you process.

Even if NAFALT, there's clearly a deep anti-male hostility woven into the fabric of feminism at its core. I'd suggest that requiring integration of the most hateful aspects like that are part of the reason why. Perhaps the widespread reluctance to adopt the term "feminist" is due in part to that.

daulm · 2013-09-30T16:25:15+00:00

Everytime a read a comment or post that is not gender neutral, I mentally reverse the genders and if I find either version to be offensive to me, then calling it out as sexist seems fair to me.

I try to hold myself and others in the MRM to the same standard as I hold those promoting "feminism".

xXCptCoolXx · 2013-09-30T12:33:33+00:00

I personally believe that we do a good job of that around here for the most part. Generally posts that go too far or are openly antagonistic and insulting either get downvoted or simply are ignored. So as for "self-policing" I don't think anything more should be done than what's already in place.

Also, there's a fundamental difference between the interactions of a large group of people online and interactions offline. On any open internet discussion forum you're going to get trolls, bigots, or idiots commenting every so often just because that's what anonymity does on the internet. This is made even worse when there's a large group of people claiming we're "misogynistic, racist, anti-gay" etc. I'm sure this slander contributes to directing some of those people to briefly check out what we do before finding out what we really are.

As I said previously, offline and online interactions are different. There are feminists online saying hate filled things that get actively supported by other online feminists (tumblr feminists) and then there's academic feminists who dress their misandry up with academic terms and theories but they still are supported. Basically what I'm saying is it's hard to equate support in an anonymous online forum to support for hateful ideas in real life. Should there ever come a day where something like this happens to the MRM it should definitely be addresses but for now I think we're doing well on the "self-policing" front.

CosmicKeys · 2013-10-01T00:20:17+00:00

I see a lot of duplicitous statements here, antagonistic junk, covert racism, dehumanizing of women, anti-LGBT sentiment etc.

Yet I also see great things. Supporting victims of sexual abuse, vocal opposition and action against to anti-male sentiments, fundraising for good causes, speaking out about violence against men, countering stereotypes and false statistics etc.

The MRM isn't a monolith, but the inner monolith should be making an effort to crush anyone who doesn't truly care about men and women being treated fairly and with respect.

headingtoshore · 2013-09-30T11:59:11+00:00

If mens rights were to gain serious traction all sorts of opportunistic people would attempt to hitch their wagons to it's star. You would see all sorts of injustice comited in it's name as you see injustice under the banners of Feminism, Christianity, Islam, America, Family, any popular idea.

So it's not IF, it's WHEN. And when the marketing gurus and politicans have had their way with 'Big M mens rights' there will be splinter groups, purists, fighting the good fight under as yet un embroidered banners.

Revoran · 2013-09-30T14:09:19+00:00

I've seen it argued that it's worse in feminism, both in magnitude and because of their stronger political power. But as has been mentioned before, just because one problem is bigger than another problem, it doesn't mean the smaller problem should be ignored.

This.

The argument that "it's worse when feminists do it because they have more political power" is basically the same as "it's worse when men do it because of the patriarchy". They are bad arguments.

Sexism and misogyny/misandry are both bad, and hell yes we should be self policing because the last thing we want to do is give them ammunition against us. Feminists are going to call us misogynists no matter what, but let's please not give them any examples of actual misogyny to point to.

Remember we're not trying to win over the radical feminists, we're trying to win over regular folks and the "feminist-lite" types. If those people look at us and see actual legitimate misogyny, it only hurts the MRM.

Be the best you can be, people.

FlamingFreedom · 2013-09-30T15:16:06+00:00

I've called out MRAs a couple of times in this subreddit.

rottingchrist · 2013-09-30T12:00:43+00:00

The problem with NAFALT is not that ordinary rank and file feminists hate men. It's that their ideology (feminism) is shaped and fuelled by the hatred of men.

2013-10-01T01:57:33+00:00

Since I have been banned from several SRS related subs for good-faith discourse I don't see fault with the majority opinion here.

However it does mean that the most polarizing voices frequently rise to the surface.

StuntPotato · 2013-10-01T08:47:54+00:00

Honestly, I'd like MRAs to take the stand that there are horrible people who are also MRAs. Taking the label MRA does not make you a saint, nor does it excuse you from normal behaviour. Shitty behaviour and language should be corrected, no matter what "clique" you run in.

2013-09-30T13:40:25+00:00

http://www.genderratic.com/p/2077/misogyny-%E2%80%93-hypocritical-accusations-of-misogyny-on-mrm-sites-and-neutering-the-misogyny-bomb/

One very familiar silencing tactic in gender discussions is the accusation of misogyny. Given the gynonormative value system of our culture, a charge of hating women is a scathing accusation. People have been seeing through it more and more, but it is still matter of some concern among MRM commenters. On r/MensRights it’s quite common to find comments warning that the MRM will never have any credibility as long as there are people saying misogynist things.

Credibility with whom? Credibility is not some free-floating, self-existent substance or some kind of trait that a person inherently has or doesn’t. It arises when someone finds you credible. That’s all. So the first question is: “credible to whom?”

... Misandry was never enough of a problem to feminism that it kept feminists from achieving their aims; why should misogyny impede the MRM any more? I don’t appreciate the way charges of misogyny have the power to shut people down, to be debate-stoppers, so I refuse to regard misogyny as some kind of heinous sin. I am not interested in worrying about the hurt feelings of people who think you or I are sub-human.

http://counterfem.blogspot.com/2010/03/counter-feminist-should-be-policy-wonk.html

The problem is not that I necessarily disagree with everything these opinion warriors are saying—sometimes I disagree, sometimes I agree, and sometimes I agree only up to a point. No, the problem is that they are—please pardon the expression—shooting above the heads of a public which is all too likely to overhear them! And not just overhear them, but either miscomprehend or willfully misconstrue what they are actually saying.

It is not always easy for an outsider to savvy what disaffected, politically-awakened men are thundering about. The outsider's lack of cultural insight, simple want of factual knowledge, and oftentimes an indoctrinated mental preset, all generate a formidable set of filters. Far too much nuance gets lost in translation, an effect that is greatly compounded when the listener is unconsciously or half-consciously "not trying to hear" what is being said.

... All feminists are continually on the lookout for impeachable utterances by MRAs or persons alleged to be such. You might ask, "what defines impeachability?", and I would reply that the question is open to discussion. To a feminist, any time a man says something which ignores or disrespects the feminist worldview, it is at least potentially an impeachable utterance. However, most feminists understand that they must appeal to mainstream standards if they wish to gain any political traction; they are aware of an upper limit, in most cases, on how arcane they can sound without boring their broader constituency.

Therefore, the rhetorical court of appeal in most cases is the "common gaze standard", or the Court of Common Gaze if you will. Both MRAs and feminists want to expose each other's impeachable utterances to the common gaze of the average man or woman, as if to say, "look at what THEY said! Does that sound right to YOU?"

And so, when a load of anti-feminists, MRAs, PUAs, and suchlike fauna are seen to post impeachable utterances about Blazing Frank—meaning George Sodini in the present case—the feminists will rummage feverishly through their careless statements in search of anything that might violate the common gaze standard. Naturally, any suitable stuff they uncover becomes ammo in their propaganda war.

But it doesn't stop there. You see, feminists are cultic and parochial—and I guess you could even say ethnocentric. Yes, I consider feminism a quasi-ethnicity! And one of their quaint folkways—in common with the political left overall—is the practice of peer correction, as I will call it. This practice consists generally of "denouncing" or "calling out" words or behaviors deemed unacceptable. In theory this sounds laudable, although in practice it becomes petty and vindictive, even Stalinistic.

So when feminist lurkers are scanning the comment thread at, let us say, the Roissy website, and they find somebody voicing an egregious opinion about the nature of women or the heroic stature of Sodini, they are doing more than just adding that statement to their body of evidence. They are additionally holding the commenters on the thread accountable for not engaging in peer correction. They feel that those anti-feminist conversationalists have a duty to behave like good little lefties on a PC university campus, to rise up and collectively trounce the wrongful speaker the instant his words appear. Such is feminist parochialism.

And such too, briefly summarized, is the propaganda war which the feminists and their political cohorts are waging against people like MRAs. The core of their strategy is guilt by association, and they aim to gather as many of their enemies as possible under the MRA umbrella, in order to taint the entire lot with an imputation of "misogyny", or any other thought-crime which occurs to them.

AtheistConservative · 2013-09-30T18:30:43+00:00

Just because women are getting criticized doesn't mean the post or poster is hateful of women. Nor is the critique invalidated because you know a handful of exceptions to the rule.

Furthermore, there's a monumental difference than some anon posting something misogynistic and enacting policy.

5th_Law_of_Robotics · 2013-10-01T15:40:00+00:00

I think any self policing should be individuals calling out other individuals who get out of line. A democratic approach that represents the consensus of the community rather than the centralized authoritarian approach of feminists that shuts down any debate from the top down.

Dronelisk · 2013-09-30T13:34:11+00:00

The MRM is largely about making our movement seem politically acceptable.

In the words of GWW, the MRM is suppsoed to be a radical movement, at least in the politically correct definition of radical, due to the ideas it inherently has.

If we get stuck trying to pander to the general public instead of actually doing what we believe we will never get anywhere.

mistyriver · 2013-09-30T16:24:31+00:00

It seems to be a very common problem that social movements choose not to distance themselves from the ideas and rancor of the angry fringe. In nations where there isn't a reasonable, even-tempered discussion about public issues, people may deem it necessary to align themselves with rancorous individuals in order to make their political statements heard.

We saw this when Christians refused to summarily call out the religious-right political movement here in the USA in the 1990s - even though they had so many regressive social policy ideas, and agendas which were frankly going to be damaging for our country. We saw this with Muslims over the last decade who chose to call terrorists "extremists" and "radicals" rather than "un-Muslim." We see it in European politics, where people accept the idea that Neo Nazi parties are "far right" on the political spectrum, and that communists who want to institute command and control economies like the former USSR are on the "far left." If political groups have insane ideas or are just hate groups, perhaps they should be deemed as such - and not given the honor of a place on the political spectrum at all.

As far as social movements in modern Western nations go, it seems to me that rancor begins to evolve after the problems are, for all intents and purposes, solved. In other words, when movements have outlived their usefulness, they tend to go rotten. For example, when feminists were fighting for substantive issues like the right to vote, there was also a whole genre of literature out there which sought to help to lift up womanhood, and define it as a group of noble virtues. Long after women had achieved, at least on paper, all the opportunities and rights that men are apportioned, we see angry hyperbolic feminists like Andrea Dworkin taking center stage - and their ideas become central to the larger modern movement.

I feel that the nascent Men's Rights movement today is not fighting against institutional problems, but it's rather a battle against this rotten form of feminism that has sought to degrade males for the past thirty or forty years. Perhaps rancor on the part of some vocal subsection of our group is important, at first, to make people sit up and take notice and take the ideas seriously. The public might need a glass of cold water thrown onto its face to wake up and realize that all is not right with how men are treated in our society.

However, one must remember that a lot of the giant leaps forward will occur with the help of people in other countries where they have a more even-tempered public discourse, and where people begin to be inspired by these new schools of thought which are coming on the scene in the USA. The Canadian woman - Karen Straughan - who is so vocal in her Youtube advocacy is an example of this effect - as are the recent initiatives we're seeing in northern Europe when it comes to a push to ban male circumcision.

leva549 · 2013-09-30T12:01:01+00:00

Hate is never productive. I would rather not be associated with people who are bitter and hateful.

leftofcentaur · 2013-09-30T18:48:35+00:00

I think we should, yes.

Yesterday, I posted this, which was met with... well... not much really.

For the lazy, it's a fairly well-known journalist's account of the first 'MRA' he has encountered. I am using quote marks because I don't believe this guy reflects who we are.

Today, Big Red has picked up on it. And yes, it matters because as much of a fool we think she is, people listen to her.

And later this week, the journalist who got sent this abuse is going to write about it for The Telegraph Men's section.

If we're going to be taken seriously, I feel we DO need to self-police, so people like this journalist see 20 'good' MRAs for every one 'bad' one.

We need to be pro-active in letting it be known that men/women like the one in the example is NOT representative of us. That we are NOT closed-minded 'morons on a hair-trigger' who attack anyone who even slightly relates to feminism.

kragshot · 2013-09-30T19:11:07+00:00

Here's the most fucked up part of this entire discussion; nearly all of the truly fucked up comments on this sub end up getting either downvoted into invisibility or you will see somebody openly call the poster out on making the comment.

But here we are having a discussion by a group of cyphers who are coming out of nowhere trying to tell us that despite the fact that our general population is significantly more prone to decry and downvote truly hateful and/or negative comments; our policy to not censor our sub is wrong because we are still allowing those anti-feminist voices that they don't approve to speak. Despite the fact that we have openly said that part of the purpose of this sub is to have a place where angry and hurt men can vent their frustration, the OP and those who came in here to support this person are dissatisfied that we are not making this sub more "acceptable" to some unmentioned quorum.

The fact is that part of the focus of this sub is to be open and willing to call bullshit on some of the things that seem to be taken as acceptable in our society. We are the harbingers of the inconvenient and uncomfortable truths that are prevalent in our society.

In fact, let us call out one of those things. At one time, there was a very clear-cut definition of misogyny and a very evident way to classify something as fitting that definition. But today; not so much. In fact, the ugly reality is that today, misogyny is defined as anything that a feminist or feminist ally doesn't like or says that it is; regardless of its relevance. The term no longer has any true relevance in the gender discussion; it has become a tool used by "alleged feminists" to silence dissent and opposition to the feminist dialog.

To the OP;

Every time we point out a legal or social double standard that diminishes men in favor of women is a time when we are doing it right.

Every time that an angry or hurt man comes in here and speaks his mind about his anger or pain and we subsequently let him talk and then work to turn his anger into something productive, is a time when we are doing it right.

And finally; every time somebody like you comes in here and tries to brand our discussion and viewpoints as "misogynist;" whether you are genuinely doing so because of "having your jimmies rustled" by our discussion (which is a good thing because we just sack-tapped you in your sensibilities) or just trying to marginalize or silence our dialog....we are doing it right.

My advice if you are genuinely discomfited by our dialog here is simple; grit your teeth and keep reading and keep yourself open to what we are talking about here. That discomfort you are feeling is an attack on the current mode of your chivalric indoctrination.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to defend and succor those who need help. It has just been corrupted by gynocentric conditioning. After a time, you'll eventually turn back into a generally helpful human being.

Mythandros · 2013-09-30T17:26:55+00:00

Sure, in every group there will be those who don't always have the groups best interests in mind, MRA's are no different. I have noticed that generally speaking, when one pops their head up in a thread on this sub-reddit, there is usually someone, sometimes several someone's that set them straight.

So while it's less here than in feminism, we also already police ourselves better because we don't want to become what feminism currently is.

VZPurp · 2013-09-30T22:39:12+00:00

No. Don't try to appease delicate sensibilities. The "us vs. them" mentality only comes about because men are indeed attacked by feminists.

mistyriver · 2013-09-30T23:01:13+00:00

The thing about holding other people to social standards, is that folks from different backgrounds and regions will have differing expectations about how one ought to converse and socialize. Can one have a large set of social standards for everybody, when everybody grew up with a different set of ideas for what this means?

Personality conflicts can certainly surface quickly... and I think that could be one of the reasons that Reddit, in general, has evolved into such an abrasive and bitter environment. I agree that the "unfair generalizations" and the "us good, them bad" stuff you're talking about is a broad problem - but I would also argue that these parochial attitudes can even affect the way that Redditors view each other. I certainly see that when I'm talking in the subreddit for the city that I grew up in, I can very deftly challenge something, and then duck out of the way and ameliorate the situation with an appropriate style of joke or conversation snippet; I don't end up offending anybody there. However, in the larger subreddits, which draw people from many different regions... when I say things that challenge people's sensibilities, it is really met with brusqueness and offense, and I don't have the requisite social skills to be able to patch things up.

So...

I would suggest, onetenth, that if you really want to have a less rancorous and less bitter atmosphere in which to chat about men's rights issues, you might want to start a mensrights-regionX subreddit. Not only will you draw in people who tend to abide by the social standards of folks from that region - but also, delightfully, it will give people the chance to talk with folks from their own locality. This, of course, means there are more opportunities to actually get together physically and do stuff in the interest of the cause (or to just meet up for fun).

ghebert001 · 2013-09-30T18:32:51+00:00

Who are we required to police compared to feminists? We have internet trolls, they have protesters like Big Red and U of T militant feminist groups who are actually out on the streets, they have people in courts and in government. If you ask me, they have more of an obligation to call out their crazies than we do.

SilencingNarrative · 2013-09-30T21:13:06+00:00

there IS misogyny somtimes expressed here,

Examples or it didn't happen.

Show me examples of posts, or comments, where someone was unfairly characterizing women or feminists and where they were not downvoted and called to account for it.

To answer your question directly, I do think MRAs should police their ranks and challenge slurs against women and unfair criticism of feminists, by calling it out and arguing against it. But not by banning.

typhonblue · 2013-09-30T15:46:57+00:00

My main criticism with feminism is that they perpetuate a belief system that demonizes men.

It's this belief system that defines them as feminist.

When MRAs do that, there will be no NAMALT. Because there is no legitimate NAFALT.

rightsbot · 2013-09-30T11:28:16+00:00

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

farkennel2 · 2013-10-01T11:53:55+00:00

I would buy that "just because one problem is bigger than another" premise if the amount of pure hatred exhibited by the feministfolk against ALL men(relative to their degree of radicalism)didnt have such all pervasive influence over the political process.When top level female academics and female politicians denounce SCUM and not go to their meetings,maybe then Ill buy that their motives are pure.

texas_ironman93 · 2013-10-01T13:26:08+00:00

We definitely should self police, it can only help us to keep focus on male issues and not fall into the hate cycle.

CosmicKeys · 2013-09-30T12:57:03+00:00

I'd call out anything bad, but I've got to say I just haven't seen it.

FallingSnowAngel · 2013-09-30T17:49:48+00:00

It seems to me the groups that have enacted the most social change in modern times were not very self critical. For example feminists or communists.

In fact I would say the most influential and effective MRA groups is based at AVFM. AVFM posts many articles that I find very distasteful and could be considered genuinely misogynist. However they certainly get results.

I am certainly not endorsing how feminists or communists operate. But I think there are strong reasons there is a trade off between effectiveness and self-criticism.

mansausage · 2013-09-30T18:14:44+00:00

I think the problem is that there are different types of MRAs.

Some want the kind of stuff that feminists usually promote, but in a more rational and fair way that doesn't ignore men.

Others just reject that completely and just want the gender nonsense to end, especially when feminist lobby groups influence politics favoring only half the population based on the genitals those people are rocking.

I consider myself to be a free spirit rather than an MRA, but personally I'm closer to the latter group. I don't want social engineering to try and end sexism, because I think it would be much better to just educate people about their instincts and why they might be there and how to deal with them.

I believe women still tend to use sex to get power, and men still tend to use power to get sex. The idea that we're really just exactly the same is IMHO anti-scientific and plain absurd.

2013-09-30T12:15:24+00:00

When we get to the point they're in now, yes. But intense self-policing at this stage of the game will scare away all of the new recruits.

This is like arguing that third-world countries should have to abide by all of the same rules regarding the environment that industrialized countries do -- ignoring that if they do that, they will never actually become industrialized.

2013-09-30T16:35:55+00:00

The MRM need not do this. The Feminist movement ought to be doing it though. They are a much more large and prominent movement and should indeed be reining in hate mongering amongst their ranks. It's probably one of the MAIN reasons Mens Rights Movement even exists.. a complete failure on their behalf to rein in extremest within their ranks that are indeed causing social misandry. Maybe if they had.. we wouldn't be talking about this right now. The Mens Rights Movement is so small.. atm. It would be like punching ourselves in the face to dismiss hate that is derived from massive injustices served to men.. with the seal of approval from feminism. Feminism has failed men entirely.

indigoanasazi · 2013-10-01T00:33:12+00:00

I was gonna come in here and go on a tear about self-policing, concern trolls, and feminist/SRS infiltration attempting to hamper open discussion on topics, but it looks like most of what I wanted to say is here.

tl;dr fuck it all, we're branded as virgin bronies just because we're here(and it's the reason why the most recognizable and credible MRA voices are female). Who the fuck cares what others think of our speech? For the most part, the insane nutball views are ignored, and without the aid of a sympathetic echo chamber, go away naturally.

Meanwhile, only the women in our movement and nearby communities(such as TRP) are allowed to talk about evolutionary psychology and biotruths without being called monsters.

ThePigmanAgain · 2013-09-30T11:44:04+00:00

Thanks for the concern.

Title	Not All MRAs Are Like That
Author	onetenth
Upvotes	96
Comments	186
Date	September 30, 2013 11:27 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1nfluz/not_all_mras_are_like_that/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/not-all-mras-are-like-that.1162535 https://theredarchive.com/post/1162535

Comments