Should we judge TRP by what they say or what we observe them do? Is there a better solution?

Let me make a few things clear before I get to the meat of my post. First of all, I am aware that myself, BP, and similarly minded people do not look at TRP through an objective lens. We see the bad and mostly ignore the good. We attribute a great deal of importance to the things we find wrong or objectionable, and use these particulars to define TRP. I am very aware of this bias. I am not saying that my observations of TRP are accurate.

Secondly, I am afraid that this post will imply that I am making a moral or a value judgement. This is not my intention. I am uninterested in the morality of TRP. This post is meant to be an observation, and not a judgement.

Now to get to my actual point. The BP, myself, and other similarly minded people perceive what we believe to be a disconnect between what TRP says and what they do. Of course we can't actually see what they do, so we judge this based on the content of their subreddit. This is the partial motivation behind many of the cherry picked quotes floating around. The BP collects ideas and opinions of TRP and says, "See, this is what you do". "This is what TRP is really about, because this is what you post". TRP will respond by saying, "No, this is what we actually believe, you don't understand TRP". But the BP doesn't believe them, because that's not what they see according to their observations. Here is a specific example. I tried to pick something that TRP would agree with.

What TRP says:

We think just as badly of men as we do women.

Observation of TRP behavior:

When TRP directly compares generalities between male and female nature, men are more commonly assigned the morally positive characteristic, or at least less negative according to mainstream views of society. For an example, TRP will say men are more altruistic than women. Despite anyone's personal feelings about altruism, it is generally considered a positive trait by society. For another example, TRP will say that men are more loyal than women. Perhaps you and I actually think that loyalty is for suckers, but it is still true that society considers loyalty to be a positive trait. TRP also says that men are more sacrificial, empathetic, loving, and rational. These are all positives according to society.

There are some exceptions. TRP will assign men a negative trait, but it is commonly a "victim characteristic" and not a "bad person" characteristic. For an example, TRP will say that men are more easily manipulated. Being easily manipulated doesn't make you a bad person (according to society), it just makes you either naive, a sucker, or a victim. Of note, within TRP women are commonly assigned the aggressor version of these victim characteristics, e.g. men are manipulated, women are manipulators. Here's another exception. Sometimes TRP will assign characteristics to men that are truly negative reflections on their moral character. For instance, TRP will say that men are lazy. However, in cases such as this, women are not assigned the positive version. According to TRP, it is not true that men are lazy, and women are hard working by comparison. Only that men are lazy.

To summarize, I have made the following observation. When TRP characterizes male and female nature, they prefer to assign the characteristics to men that society considers morally positive. Other like minded people have observed this as well, and we then proceed to offer an explanation for this observation that heavily plays to our narrative (TRP hates women, TRP puts men on a pedestal..etc.)

Now here are a few common explanations for these observations that I've heard coming from TRP. This is not an inclusive list.

• Society already makes us very aware of the moral failings of men and the victim-hood of women. The reverse is rare or non-existent. TRP partially fills this void by almost exclusively talking about female moral failings and the injustices faced by men. To see the counterbalance to TRP, people just need to read the morning news. Therefore TRP does not need to maintain internal balance. Balance is already provided by the mainstream ideology.

• The men who have come to TRP have put women on a pedestal their whole lives. The 'Women are Wonderful Effect' is in full swing. These men need to be hit over the head with an overly negative image of women to shock them out of their previous mindset. Along these lines, TRP will say it is better for men to assume the worst for their own protection.

• Society has pampered women in such a way that it has become unnecessary for women to develop any moral character. TRP attributes morally positive characteristics to men, because men are actually morally superior. This is reality. Reality doesn't have to be fair or balanced.

• The moral standards of society are not shared by TRP. When we say that women are disloyal, we are not saying that disloyalty makes her a bad person, that's your own value projection.

These are all excellent explanations for the observation. They are all legitimate reasons that TRP would heavily attribute morally positive characteristics to men and less so to women. If we were to accept any of these explanations, TRP becomes reasonable. However, no one accepts these explanations. We have our own explanations that complies with our own ideology. This is not preferable or ideal, but this is what people do. In general, we judge people on their actions in the context of our own narrative, and not their self-descriptions. We know that people will always try to cast themselves in the best possible light, so we are immediately suspicious of their own self descriptions.

Take feminism for instance. Feminists will say that they are for equality. TRP looks at their behavior, sees that they exclusively champion women's rights over the rights of men, and conclude that equality is just a PR tactic and not a real feature of feminism. Feminists offer their own explanation. They say they focus on women because women have the short end of the stick in current society. If we believe this explanation, if women really do have the short end of the stick, then feminist behavior suddenly becomes justified. Similarly, TRP behavior suddenly becomes justified if we accept their explanations. However, no one accepts the other groups explanations. They form their own explanations based on their own narrative.

So how do we get past this? Everyone rationalizes their beliefs and behaviors, but how can we tell if a rationalization is legitimate or not? How do we circumvent the relative agendas of the in-group and the out-group to get to the truth of the matter? Should we always go with the neutral description? I don't have a good answer to this, so I'm asking you guys.

How can we circumvent the bias in our personal observations, but also not rely on the self-serving descriptions provided by the group itself? This question I feel is very important, because it will substantially guide our approach to many of the topics discussed on this sub. For instance, much of the TRP's claims about women are based on their (forgive me) biased personal observations which conflicts with the self-serving descriptions that women provide of themselves. I criticize TRP for doing this, but I turn around and do it right back to them! I don't like to be inconsistent, so I very much would like to resolve this issue.