A criticism of the MRM - We need to discuss this

dungone · 2015-09-29T12:57:44+00:00

I can't say that I agree with you on these words. Gynocentrism is not a "trigger" word nor is it used the same way as "Patriarchy". The vast majority of time it is used to describe very self-evident things, such as a speaker who thinks that the biggest problem with schools failing to educate boys is that the educated girls will lack desirable dating options. If things like that are upsetting to people, it's not because of the word. And if the word is popular, it is only because it describes so many situations very well.

It literally only means "female focused" and while it describes an incredibly pervasive attitude in our society, no one views it as some unfalsifiable, invisible, overarching social construct that advantages all women over all men. Find me a use of the word that isn't falsifiable and I'll eat my words. There may be misapplications but we should easily be able to tell whether they are true or false. Unlike feminist usage of "Patriarchy", we should not be seeing mutually exclusive ideas being used to claim that we live in a "gynocentric" society. If so then that would be a big problem. Can you think of any?

vonthe · 2015-09-29T11:47:40+00:00

Misandry is a blatant act, it's the discrimination against men because they are men.

Well, actually, it means 'hatred of men'. That's what the word means, and it is a useful word. It goes with 'misanthrope', which is 'hatred of all people'. 'Misogyny', I'm afraid, has been perverted and all meaning is lost. We shouldn't do the same with 'misandry'.

One can discriminate against men without it being due to misandry. In fact, the bulk of discrimination against men is not due to misandry, just as the bulk of discrimination against women is not due to misogyny. The Montreal school shooter, for example, was clearly motivated by misogyny, and that was a misogynistic act.

We risk doing the same thing with misandry that feminism has done with misogyny, which is to redefine the term to mean 'anything we don't like'. It's a clever sleight of hand (or of word, if you will) which automatically invalidates any argument: after all, why would anyone listen to someone who hates women?

I'm getting pretty old now. I remember 30 years ago when people like McKinnon and Dworkin talked on and on about misogyny and how western society subjugated women with violence and the threat of violence. Most people rejected that extreme rhetoric.

And yet here we are. The last generation has normalized the term misogyny, and people now widely believe (even in this sub) that women have been oppressed throughout history.

Edited to add: this is not to say that I don't agree with you. I do, quite strongly. Well said and all that. :)

lasciate · 2015-09-29T18:09:05+00:00

it does push women towards more attractive standards. This is a blatant positive for straight men. There's caveats in there but in general that is positive for men.

Please elaborate. How do men blatantly benefit from women being in control of/beholden to the fashion industry? How does it push women towards more attractive standards? More attractive than what?

Are you maybe letting your viewpoint as a gay man inform you too much here? By which I mean you might see a man in an Armani suit as more attractive than one in a t-shirt and jeans whereas a straight man couldn't care less if a woman is wearing Vera Wang or a blouse and shorts (and would prefer if she was wearing nothing).

eaton80 · 2015-09-29T18:47:33+00:00

As a gay man count yourself lucky that you will never have to face off against a woman in Family Court. Trust me only then can you truly know what Gynocentrism is/isn't.

SilencingNarrative · 2015-09-29T23:46:46+00:00

How did the feminists gather so much power?

You talk about the various unfair slurs feminists have made against men, and then warn us about developing counter slurs because we don't want to "be just like them".

What I think you are missing is the role of identity slurs and partisans in identity group politics. Recall that warren ferrel took the high road for 30 years and no one paid attention to him or other feminist peacemakers like karen decrow.

The feminist partisans, lacking opposition from men, just kept growing stronger and gaining more influence in the legal and educational systems, and the workplace.

It wasn't until avfm, Paul elam, and other mra partisans started returning fire with terms like gynocentrism, feminazi, and with sites like register-her, and by engaging partisans like valenti and sarkeesian that warren ferrel started being paid attention to.

Nobody pays attention to Dr king until Malcolm makes them.

We need to intensify our use of terms like gynocentrism, and the size of our repetition network until feminist partisans are engaged on all sides and for every anti male talking point and insinuation, there is a well known counter talking point with heavy insinuation.

Peace can only be maintained when both sides feel threatened by the others partisans. Once parity has been achieved, the partisans will start to lose followers and mindshare, but not before.

Asking nicely for our civil rights simply will not do.

EvilPundit · 2015-09-29T11:25:58+00:00

I have stickied this thread for discussion. Examining our movement critically will help strengthen our theoretical base.

2015-09-29T18:56:59+00:00

The term "gynocentrism" shows up in search 37 times in the last year, or 19 times for selftext. That doesn't seem like a lot.

chafedinksmut · 2015-09-30T03:29:39+00:00

I take you at your word about who you are, and the positions you take. HOWEVER...

The difference is we're accurately describing reality, and they're blatantly lying about reality. We can back our positions with objective logic, facts, and evidence. They back their man-hate with conspiracy theories, obviously false statistics, horridly biased "studies", and straight out lies.

typhonblue · 2015-10-01T16:10:44+00:00

1: We've started to use gynocentrism as a trigger word in a similar fashion to how feminists use 'The patriarchy'.

We? How many people here agree with me that gynocentrism is damaging to women, and not in a vague "patriarchy hurts men too" way? Have you asked? In a real and verifiable way backed by science into human psychology and possibly to the tune of a dollar amount.

By centring women, society also removes their personhood--removes recognition of the consequences of their actions--turning them into measuring sticks for men's actions.

Enjoying consequences to your actions is a billion dollar industry(games) therefore we can even put a price tag on what society takes from women.

Might even be equal to the forced transfer of wealth from men to women via government.

MrDoradus · 2015-09-29T11:45:22+00:00

I agree with you, but to be honest your examples of "non-universal gynocentrism" are lacking, imho, for I would much rather have the courts be in my favour in most cases and have to look harder for the games that I like. I know that this was an example off the top of your head, but games won't make me feel better once a court screws me over just for being a man. The two listed areas of our life, entertainment and law, just aren't comparable.

But yes, I perfectly agree with your sentiment and confirm that generalisations are very seldom right and often bad. And misslabeling things always brings about too much confusion to have positive effects.

MenandBoysareGood · 2015-09-30T00:54:56+00:00

I can't say gynocentricism is good for guys. I think you take it out of context. To me it means "women and children first" and essentially goes hand in hand with the "disposability" of men. Women/fashion I would argue is an invention by corporate giants looking to make a buck by stereotyping women.

Black_caped_man · 2015-09-30T10:11:36+00:00

It has blessed the world with some of the most attractive women in the world & it does push women towards more attractive standards. This is a blatant positive for straight men. There's caveats in there but in general that is positive for men.

I don't agree with this one bit, what the fashion industry has done is merely create a cultural ideal of beauty. In the 1600s the ideal was to be as pale as possible for both women and men for example. I don't remember what time period it was but at some time it was considered very attractive to be slightly overweight. In the '80s people wore shoulder pads. Fashion and what it considered attractive is actually highly culturally motivated in most of us. I'm not willing to wear the tinfoil hat that says it's controlled but it can be greatly influenced.

The equality I'm striving for is one where we accept and celebrate our differences, understand how generalizations work and why it's natural for us, and maintain that all humans have an equal worth as humans but also possess and individual value that differs.

We do have a patriarchal society in the sense that the majority of our leaders are men and have been men.

That's not how you define a patriarchal society though, and it quite baselessly assumes that an equilibrium lies at 50%.

I do agree with the laid back use of both gynocentrism and misandry though. I actually prefer not to use either term since I find them rather vague, confusing, and not really that useful.

Also, hello from another Swede! I like discussing here but I'm not really ready to "don" the mantle of MRA, I am an anti feminist though, as much as I dislike being anti stuff.

192873982 · 2015-09-30T19:45:37+00:00

You are right on some ways.

Gynocentrism isn't always bad, but when is it bad and when is it good?

But gynocentrism does exist (other than the patriarchy) and in some cases it's bad.

Also how to identify gynocentrism properly?

If a army does not allow women, but forces men, is that gynocentrism (because military service is only an effort) or androcentrism (because military service might be an honor)?

Also I don't see misandry used a lot in a wrong context, but I might be wrong.

Misandry is hate of men. But does that mean that it is misandric, when a property most men (but not all) share is hated? Obviously no, hating soccer is not misandric. It's only misandric if you hate soccer because men like it.

That being said, menspreading complaints seem to be mostly misandric. Most people who complained about menspreading didn't care about the useage of space, because then they'd have complained about other space-wasting behaviours (that where often seen in the same pictures) as well.

I am concerned that we will develop the same logical problems as feminism, but I don't think we are displaying them yet, but I highly encourage you to bring examples of it, that would be really helpful. We'd be glad to discuss them.

Impacatus · 2015-09-29T11:31:55+00:00

I agree. I'm not entirely sure the MRM needs a unified social theory to rally around, but if it does, then rather than gynocentrism, I would prefer to call it male disposability.

I think it would be pretty difficult to make the case that society is centered around women. I see that hierarchy as more:

successful men > women > unsuccessful men

But I don't really see any solution. A lot of people are going to be tempted to lazily reflect feminist's rhetoric back at them. Sometimes it starts as satire, but then it gets to the point where they don't remember what their original position is. It's like:

"Look, they did X! That's outrageous! If we did X, they would be mad."

"So should people do X?"

"..."

Dimension128 · 2015-09-29T12:00:01+00:00

I'm new here, to both reddit and to a lesser degree... the mrm. I have been watching the videos, and reading the articles - for feminist, mra, egalitarian, etc... related topics for a while now. I want to point out that not all misuses of words like misandry are ignorant, or nefarious in nature. Often I've seen tongue in cheek accusations of misandry thrown out as a deliberate attempt to illustrate the oppositions fallacious use of misogyny. I have even tried this approach myself a few times. In my experience it almost always fails to make the point to the people who matter, but serves as an inside joke / echo chamber type of thing to those who don't need to hear what you're saying... because they already get it. So yes this sort of thing can be fun, and there is nothing wrong with that. But if you really want to be serious, educate, learn, and just get facts straight... OP has some good points here. We should discuss these things.

cymrich · 2015-09-29T16:36:25+00:00

I for one believe trigger words are pure bullshit. I don't have PTSD, neither do most people on reddit. I'm not going to whine and cry if someone says something I disagree with to the point of pretending I have a serious medical disorder. I'm also not going to mock and diminish experiences of the people with the real disorder by doing the same...

TheDude41 · 2015-09-29T23:21:54+00:00

I know we are better than that.

No, we are not. What do you think this is? A white knight convention?

There's caveats in there but in general that is positive for men.

No, it isn't.

We need to remember this, otherwise we fall pray to the same logical fallacies that feminists have long since been swarmed by.

No, we don't need to remember that.

TL;DR - Look ma, I can defeat feminism and restore reason a balance to the world with one hand tied behind my back.

No, you can't.

Naive, really.

yummyluckycharms · 2015-09-30T19:01:31+00:00

We do have a patriarchal society in the sense that the majority of our leaders are men and have been men.

How can we have a patriarchal society - when its the women, who are the dominant share of voters in a democracy, voting them in? Its a matriarchy, not patriarchy.

Take for example, the gynocentrism of the fashion world... It has blessed the world with some of the most attractive women in the world & it does push women towards more attractive standards.

Fashion world and its products are made for women to be consumed by women. If women wanted fat models, then the designers would make fat dresses to be shown on the cat walk. They dont - and it has nothing to do with men or what men want.

There is nothing positive about a gynocentric society

We've started to use misandry for the smallest of things, things which waters the term down

It might water the term down, but it also means the term is entering the daily vocabulary of society. Keeping it in the ivory towers will not create change - its when its on the lips and minds of the average citizen will change occur.

Edit: I am a bit concerned that the OP seems to be repeating many of the feminist lies that are being recycled from time to time.....will he be defending the wage gap myth next?

DavidByron2 · 2015-10-01T17:14:42+00:00

gynocentrism has pretty much become synonymous with 'The patriarchy' in feminist circles

I haven't really ever used the word and I haven't seen any of the other theoreticians use it much either but maybe I missed it. I guess it's not a bad word in itself but I don't think it really sums up the ideas the movement pushes. The better word for that (phrase) would be : male disposability.

"Gynocentrism" hasn't been used as much and it certainly hasn't been used like "the patriarchy" is used by feminists, at least in my mind, but perhaps you're right that people with a less clear concept of the big picture could make that identification.

"The patriarchy" is a feminist hate movement conspiracy theory. It's a made up plot that says men all over the world secretly work together to screw over women. All men. Screwing over all women. It's as fucked up and stupid a concept as the Nazis and their Zionist Occupation Government (ZOG). It's crazy hate town. It is in no sense real. It's pointless and sexist to even consider it seriously (like asking, "Gee you know maybe there really are a lot of Jews running banks, you know there might be something to it..." is offensive).

As far as i can see the MRA do not believe anything equivalent. But they do believe in male disposability which is a sense that lower class men have tended to be treated like crap by those in power (regardless of sex although mostly the people in power are men) possibly because of some sort of evo psych thing or some sort of practical matter. They also believe that feminism has a lot of institutional power these days and also treats men like crap - because they hate men or whatever reason. But they do not believe (1) that this is some conspiracy - it's all very much out in the open - people brag about helping women and not men (2) that this is an attitude unique to women. On the contrary "white knight" is the term used for men who are especially sexist (no term for women equivalent exists) but everyone shares in this bias against men. (3) MRAs don't insist this attitude has always been in existence or if it has that it has always meant a bias against men historically, because back then everyone had a lot of shit to deal with. (4) MRAs don't say that there's anything vindictive or intentional about male disposability. On the contrary it seems like something that just sort of happened. it's not any sort of "us vs them" situation.

But you know what? That's my thoughts and perhaps a lot of people don't get these things and really do see what the MRA says as some sort of mirror image. That would be bad thinking but maybe some people fall into that lazy pattern.

2015-10-01T17:29:24+00:00

Something can be male-dominated and gynocentric at the same time.

Rethgil · 2015-10-01T19:34:03+00:00

You're confusing numbers with influence. Specifically, you claim media and video are not gynocentric purely because there are more male workers than female ones-even assuming the numbers are accurate, you totally ignore the cultural impact of feminism on their creative freedoms, not to mention the pandering to the female economy that dictates most business because thats the gender with the most disposable income.

Your argument therefore comes across as though its from someone who is very blinkered and takes what they see at face value, ignoring and missing the complexity of reality.

The influence of feminism everywhere has little to do with 'more women being employed in film or game making' but everything to do with the cultural trend to appeal to women, and appease them, often for easy economic reasons. It almost feels like you would look at a bee hive and declare it male dominated because of all the male worker bees, ignoring the fact that they work for the queen.

tonyespresso · 2015-10-02T18:00:50+00:00

Right off the bat--it is clear that you have not read Spreading Misandry, Legalizing Misandry, Sanctifying Misandry...

I don't think many men who contribute to this subreddit have read them either. There is more to read than articles on the internet to get up to speed with what is going on in the world.

Immediately your argument takes a massive hit by making generalizations to try to counter what are admittedly also generalizations (so you are right in small part).

Take the movie industry, or the videogame industry. Even though I'm sure a lot of you will be pro-gg I do have to say that our industry is quite male dominated.

Spreading Misandry offers a lengthy and heavily footnoted corrective to this idea of yours.

Have you read Lionel Tiger's The Decline of Males?

atheist4thecause · 2015-10-03T09:32:13+00:00

On Gynocentrism, you started out talking about the generalization of society, but ended up focusing on a specific industry. That's faulty. If we are to talk about society as a whole, we must generalize are statements. There is literally no other way to talk about society as a whole. While doing this, all parties must keep in mind that these are generalizations. Objections can be made if one party or the other feels the generalization is incorrect, and then there can be a discussion about why it's correct or incorrect. It really depends on the context IMO.

As for gynocentrism isn't always bad, isn't that just stating the obvious? I mean, I don't know of anybody who thinks that gynocentrism (as the concept) is always bad. Some people may use the word only in a negative way, but there's nothing wrong with that, either. This is really a semantics issue that doesn't get at the core of any real problems.

About your example about modeling, a pretty big caveat to that is male models who basically get no attention at all, and much less money because of the gynocentrism attached to modeling. There are goods and bads to the issues, but it makes sense that we would be concentrating more on the bad than the good.

About misandry, again this is semantics. Basically all of your complaints are semantics. I find this to be uninspiring. We need to discuss real issues, not get hung up on discussing semantics until we are blue in the face.

About me: I'm a Left-leaning Centrist White male atheist.

Lethn · 2015-09-29T11:19:27+00:00

I agree with you actually, I try my best to use misandry where the term is supposed to be, but there are people who are just trying to turn the movement into another whiny form of inverted Feminism.

Then they have the fucking gall to downvote me when I tell them to not go on about trivial bullshit in the face of much more serious sexism, that post about kangaroos being a classic example. They really should make a seperate subreddit for that kind of thing if they feel so strongly about it rather than spam it over the front page.

GenderNeutralLanguag · 2015-09-29T11:38:06+00:00

Prior to developing this concept of Gynocentrism the big validish critisim of the MHRM was that we where trying to break the threat narrative of victim feminism with out having a better narrative to replace it with. That we didn't actually have any ideas, we just hated women. With the development and very common use of "gynocentrism" we have solved that problem.

The real issue is turning gynocentrism into "The Patriarchy" for Men's Rights. It's not that we need to stop using gynocentrism, but that we need to clearly identify the limits and cavets to this theory. So long as it remains an underlying truth that informs more specific arguments and not an answer into and of it's self, we should keep using it.

Kuramo · 2015-09-30T03:27:28+00:00

We know biological reasons for why this would occur, a womb is more important than a ball sack in essence.

What the hell are you saying? Are you agree with society seeing men as disposable toy soldiers just becuase we have almost useless reproductive organs (according to you)?

What if I told you I see my penis and all my fucking reproductive system with the same significance as a womb, a clitoris, and ovaries?

ball sack

I would rather name that beautiful body part with its own name:

And yeah, I'm gay too, and I'm in favor of a welfare state.

Ashgan · 2015-09-30T03:02:40+00:00

I partially agree with your individual points, but more importantly think that this kind of introspection and self-critique is a definative 'must have' for the movement.

We need to stay clear minded, open to criticism and willing to logically and rationally re-approach our positions as situations and information change.

Using your method of comparison above is a start. Most of us can see the folly of feminism and we should strive to try and repeat as few of it's mistakes as possible.

2015-09-30T12:03:11+00:00

I was thinking the exact same things, we're getting too militiant in our constant calls of misandry and gynocentrism and it's starting to look a bit weird. You know how a lot of people say their lived experience doesn't fit with the image of the world as seen through a feminist ideological lens? Yeah, well that is starting to apply to our rhetoric somewhat.

We need to chill out a bit, and focus on the facts

Hzle · 2015-10-01T07:01:10+00:00

Movies & Video games are far from gynocentric and one could call them androcentric

I'm not sure this is true of movies (plenty of male eye-candy,plenty of women going to the movies, plenty of plotless movies about feelings and romance, or "girl overcomes obstacles & prejudice" movies)

But a lot of games are aimed at men, because so far many more men have played games. That is changing, and as women play more and more silly games on phones, you'll see more and more women's games (because men and women like different sorts of game)

This is hardly unique. Look at (paper) publishing: magazines and books. Women read much more, so the output is aimed at them, and various prejudices appear there.

But even if there were a group of games that reflected male desires - this would be no bad thing, because they merely reflect fantasies. It's not evidence of a male-dominated world, so much as evidence of trends in consumption of video games - just as "50 shades of gray" is evidence of trends in consumption of literature.

I think you're right that gynocentric is one of those difficult, wishy-washy concepts. Sure news sites and papers do seem to talk about things from a female perspective, but it's not clear that this is more "important" than other perspectives (how could we provide evidence that it is?)

However, there are many issues where people talk about "equality" and then the whole debate thereafter is centred around women's experiences. That is certainly a fair observation, I think.

MRMRising · 2015-10-01T16:00:00+00:00

We know biological reasons for why this would occur, a womb is more important than a ball sack in essence.

But why? There is now over 6 Billion people on the planet, the Uterus simply does not have the same market value as it once had. And, with slut culture (promoted by feminists I may add) pussy's perceived value has also gone down. Its time to kick the socio-economic pedestal out from underneath woman.

bitterbut_true · 2015-10-02T16:26:53+00:00

I concur with you on Parts 2 and 3. However Part 1?? I think its OK to 'overuse' the Gyno term. Its quick, easy and encompassing. At the general level of debate, public discourse and mass media we don't want to get bogged in semantics. That's for the Social Scientists. If this means we can't criticise their overuse of "Patriarchy" then so be it. Lets face it they're NEVER going to stop using it. Well we've got history, the evidence...and a great adjective as well.

blewpah · 2015-10-02T22:50:44+00:00

whilst feminists make the mistake of broad generalizations we shouldn't fall into the same trap. I know we are better than that.

...

feminists make the mistake of broad generalizations

I know we are better than that.

uhh.

caius_iulius_caesar · 2015-10-03T04:31:11+00:00

Gynocentrism (as usually defined) exists. The patriarchy (as usually defined) doesn't.

And what's being gay got to do with it?

Landjo · 2015-09-30T18:31:33+00:00

Another Swede here. I am not so sure about gynocentrism, but I have a broader, related concern.

Much of our "angry" advocacy concerns the growing feminist obsession with victimhood, and the use of the patriarchy notion to justify glaring injustices against men. Quotidian events are interpreted with a single minded view to portraying women as victims - even in areas such as health and education where, if anything, men have been worse off for decades (and, in the case of health, for human history).

But we still constantly fall into the trap of responding to such nonsense by using the same single-minded focus to emphasise the victimhood of men. We may, for example, have data on DV symmetry on our side, but we cannot automatically assume that that means DV against men is a larger problem. It is not only politically unpalatable to most of society, it, when combined with the male gender role, makes us look at least as victim-obsessed as the movement we accuse of victim-obsession.

There is a fine line here. Most reasonable people, including feminists, will take male DV and male rape seriously. But they will react allergically against anything that appears to award victim status to men as a group or undermine efforts in favor of women. There is compassion out there for male rape victims in the Congo, truly horrific, but as soon as we start comparing the plight of women and men, we will lose.

Express disgust at how sexual harassment accusations are abused, and people will dismiss you as extremist. But express understanding that it will be difficult for women, who have heard since they were children that they are victims of rampant sexism, to know when their travails at work stem from sexism or from competition, personality conflicts, and performance, and people will nod and acknowledge such abuse occurs, often contributing a few examples of their own.

It is, indeed, unfair that AVFM and other sites are portrayed as led by angry misogynist losers for portraying anger that blanches in comparison to that of more radical feminist sites. But, at some point, we have to let that anger go and convince the public that, by and large, we are only addressing the neglected side of the oppressive effects of gender roles. Aspects that are intimately connected with many of the problems women face: after all, who would entrust the management of a billion dollar company to a person we see as a victim? As long as that holds women back, benevolent efforts such as women-friendly hiring practices will only double instances of discrimination, not compensate for or eliminate them.

readitall2 · 2015-10-01T02:14:20+00:00

Good to see some insightful and calm discussion in here.

azazelcrowley · 2015-09-29T19:32:40+00:00

I agree that these terms being used this way is dangerous, but I think we need words to describe these things. Micromisandry or something.

And be more specific where possible, instead of saying "Gynocentrism." even if it's broadly, technically correct. But yeh, we shouldn't get lazy with our language usage.

EvilPundit · 2015-09-29T11:31:16+00:00

Concern trolling is banned on this sub, so fuck off.

DancesWithPugs · 2015-09-29T19:12:50+00:00

For what it's worth:

I don't see much value in most political labels. Saying "I am a feminist" could mean anything from supporting true equality to believing that males should be exterminated. There is almost as much of a range within the MRM if you include the ultra chauvanist fringe wackos. Calling yourself an MRA won't help you persuade the vast majority of feminists or neutral fence sitters. Many internet feminists are openly hostile to the very concept of an MRA thanks to a successful well poisoning propaganda campaign. A similar campaign demonizing entrenched feminism is an uphill battle and probably not worth the effort. Propaganda is shady anyway. It's better to use facts and reason, in the long run. It doesn't have to be a fight against an enemy, when on the surface at least there are many shared goals like reducing the importance of gender roles.

I look at it this way. We are a mix of genes and culture. Men face certain problems disproportionately, and women face different problems disproportionately. Men have an easier time getting respect and women have an easier time getting compassion, in general. The gender specific problems should be addressed, but they aren't as big of issues as the troubles that affect almost everybody. Right now in the US there are people working full time and still in poverty. All the economic growth goes to millionaire and billionaire investors and owners, instead of the workers who created the wealth. Global warming isn't going away on its own. Parents need much more family leave than they get.

So rather than an us vs. them mentality, I urge you to find a common point of interest and collaborate. This builds trust, understanding, and sometimes community. Let the maniac radicals wear themselves out in screaming matches, while the decent people do the hard work of improving society.

The_0bserver · 2015-09-30T14:34:20+00:00

Brings Sense into MRA

Give this guy (OP) a flair mods. :/

IcarusBurning · 2015-09-29T22:22:59+00:00

All in all: We are displaying similar logical problems as feminism.

My biggest problem with some of the discussion in this sub, right here in a succinct sentence.

A criticism of the MRM - We need to discuss this

Gynocentrism as a trigger word

Gynocentrism isn't always bad

Misandry has a certain definition, lets stay with the definition

Comments

Title	A criticism of the MRM - We need to discuss this
Author	TheRavenousRabbit
Upvotes	75
Comments	162
Date	September 29, 2015 11:13 AM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3mtjrr/a_criticism_of_the_mrm_we_need_to_discuss_this/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/a-criticism-of-the-mrm-we-need-to-discuss-this.970443 https://theredarchive.com/post/970443