~ archived since 2018 ~

MHRM calling the world

ThePigman

August 24, 2013

26 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/mhrm-calling-the-world/

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	MHRM calling the world
Author	ThePigman
Upvotes	26
Comments	28
Date	August 24, 2013 1:36 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1kzaht/mhrm_calling_the_world/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/mhrm-calling-the-world.1165597 https://theredarchive.com/post/1165597

Comments

[–]GenderEqualityKing 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

I just want to go out on a limb here and say, for the record, that the sudden, meteoric promotion of AVFM as the titular mouthpiece of the MRM is intentional and malicious: make no mistake about it, this is going to be an ugly hatchet job.

By the time the mainstream media is done excoriating and exposing AVFM for what it is, this whole movement will be stigmatized beyond the point of repair. Fuck it, though. This is our society. We're not capable of discussing things in a nuanced manner. It's easier to make straw man arguments and be either BLACK or WHITE on every issue (Republican or Democrat, Atheist or Christian, Gay or straight, White or Black, Pro-Feminist or Anti-Feminist, etc., etc.). It's pathetic and we're going to reap what we sow when a generation comes around with the balls to reject these false dichotomies and simplified paradigms. Fuck it all.

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]GenderEqualityKing 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]GenderEqualityKing 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Maybe I'm just naive, but I really believe that if I sat down with a group of feminists and had the opportunity to explain my interest in the MRM (plainly and respectfully), I have a feeling that they'd be very surprised by what they find. They'd probably expect me to be spouting anachronistic BS about women "needing to know their place in the kitchen," etc., but they'd find someone who is surprisingly well-versed in feminist ideology, who is able to draw upon personal experiences to make cogent arguments in favor of a more nuanced approach to gender studies.

For example, there is a difference between a discussion of "patriarchal society" and a discussion of "the patriarchy," and it's not just a question of semantics, either. These words have real-world implications. The use of the term "patriarchy" relegates the role of women in shaping our present-day society to that of passive reactors. The use of the term "patriarchal society," on the other hand, describes the way in which a society is structured without vesting agency (or divesting agency) in a specific sex for the creation and enforcement of the patriarchal structure. Patriarchal society is created and enforced by custom, by culture, and sometimes by choice. Patriarchal society is enforced by men and by women.

To me, conflating "the patriarchy" with "patriarchal society" is equivalent to conflating a dictatorship with a constitutional monarchy: to extrapolate from the analogy, if you want to reform the law in the UK, would it make sense to advocate for the "complete overthrow of the dictatorship (the royal family, etc.)" or would it make more sense to figure out the workings of the parliamentary system of government and realize that the fate of its political parties (and platforms) are being decided by its citizens (not the Monarchy).

Beheading the king may sound enticing in theory, but it's not going to change the law in the UK, is it. You may chop off the titular head of state, but the reality is that you won't really be changing the system of government, will you. Changing the government involves recognizing the role that YOU play (as men and women) in voting for it, in supporting it.

I don't support the patriarchal society in which we live (in fact, I hate it more than the feminists, even), but I can plainly see that many women have their reasons for supporting it, sometimes knowingly and sometimes unknowingly. Is this a bad thing? I don't know, I think it's understandable on some level, but if we really want to deconstruct patriarchal society (and I think we ALL do, feminists and MRAs alike), it's necessary to dispel the notion that it is being supported (and enforced) mainly by a group of white male "patriarchs." It's being supported BY SOCIETY, by men, by women, by children, etc. It would be a fallacy to suggest that men are solely responsible for the existence of patriarchal society.

By the way, interestingly enough, I think that MRA's recognize the existence of "patriarchal society" as well (even though they are loathe to refer to it as such) but they mistakenly believe that patriarchal society disadvantages men more than it disadvantages women and that there is no such thing as "male privilege." I disagree with all of this, but I can understand why they've come to feel this way: feminism has focused the harms of patriarchal society almost exclusively on women, while refusing to acknowledge the harms that patriarchal society has caused men (until very recently when it's received more press coverage). Nevertheless, a comprehensive understanding of patriarchal society (not a fictitious, male-created "patriarchy") would involve exploring the harms that it has caused men (as well as all the harms it's caused women). Hint: many of these harms OVERLAP. If a man dies at work, it hurts his wife, it hurts his children, it hurts his extended family. If a marriage falls apart because of pressures on a man in patriarchal society, it hurts his kids, his wife, etc. If men turn to drug use, to sex work, to many of these things, it has an impact on their families (I'm not saying that drug use or sex work is bad (or good), but I'm saying that it has an impact on MEN as well as on women. It's time to stop addressing gender issues in isolation. We're all batting for the same team here.

[–]themountaingoat 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I have sat down with many feminists and explained my interest in the MRM. Many of them will pay lip service to the ideas of the MRM, but will never change either their minds or their behavior, and they don't even really consider the fact that they might be wrong.

Using the term "patriarchal society" is much better than using the term patriarchy, but I still have several disagreements with this point of view.

For one, I think you need to clarify what you mean by patriarchal society. Men are in positions of power generally, but that is because they have more motivation to get there. I don't see how a society with more men in the higher positions of power because they want to be there more is a problem.

It seems to me that by saying you are against society you are engaging in somewhat Utopian thinking. If you are going to advocate an entirely difference society you need to specify what exactly you would want the end product to look like. I don't think you really have a clear understanding of what you want unless you do this.

I am highly suspicious of broad and vague categorizations that aren't really that useful. If we have problems with specific things we should work to change those things to the extent to which that is possible, but fighting "society" as some greater force doesn't seem to me to be helpful.

[–]AloysiusC 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I really believe that if I sat down with a group of feminists and had the opportunity to explain my interest in the MRM (plainly and respectfully), I have a feeling that they'd be very surprised by what they find.

Why don't you give it a shot then?

They'd probably expect me to be spouting anachronistic BS about women "needing to know their place in the kitchen,"

I think they will just take whatever you say to be "anachronistic BS about women". But find out for yourself.

For example, there is a difference between a discussion of "patriarchal society" and a discussion of "the patriarchy,"

Good luck giving mainstream morons a workable understanding of that difference. Meanwhile feminists will use them interchangeably depending on what suits their agenda at any given moment. The same way how objectification is either desirable or disgusting depending on who does it.

The use of the term "patriarchal society," on the other hand, describes the way in which a society is structured without vesting agency (or divesting agency) in a specific sex for the creation and enforcement of the patriarchal structure.

So why call it "patriarchal" thereby directly connecting it to one sex? If it really is as gender neutral as you seem to believe, then calling it this can only be taken as pointlessly divisive and openly hostile to men. If however it isn't gender neutral, then you have to identify the differences and find evidence for them. You can't have it both ways. The way I see it, there is more reason to call it "matriarchal" than patriarchal.

Patriarchal society is enforced by men and by women.

Certainly women have more power to change it than men. They have the lobby and political representation that men can only dream of at this point.

It would be a fallacy to suggest that men are solely responsible for the existence of patriarchal society.

Don't blame people for thinking this. Blame the ideologues who keep using words like patriarchy and their variations. If everyone kept talking about a Jewish conspiracy like it's a real thing, it wouldn't be fair to say those who believe it was set up by Jews are being fallacious.

MRAs ....mistakenly believe that patriarchal society disadvantages men more than it disadvantages women and that there is no such thing as "male privilege."

How about some evidence for this? The statistics on living standards clearly show men averagely draw the short end of the stick.

As for "male privilege", I'm still waiting for actual examples of this. Since you think it exists, you must have some in mind. Care to enlighten me?

If a marriage falls apart because of pressures on a man in patriarchal society, it hurts his kids, his wife, etc.

This is by far the best point you made. And it shows why feminism fails because it's practically designed from the ground up on the assumption of an adversarial relationship between the sexes. Terms like "patriarchy", "male privilege" (without its counterpart) and many others have one purpose alone: to create and spread hostility towards men.

We're all batting for the same team here.

We are but feminists aren't. If feminists were for equality, then most MRAs would be feminists. It's precisely feminists' sexism that funnels people into the MRM.

[–]mhra1 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]GenderEqualityKing 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mhra1 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Regardless of what scenario plays out, the wheels of the MHRM are in motion. Feminists have begun to rock back on their heels. And yeah, the only direction they can go in the future will necessitate the attempt to co-opt and take credit for furthering men's issues.

That move will not go down without internal fracturing in mainstream feminism. There is just too much hate in the movement, too much animus against men, and too much money tied up in woman-centric industries.

And do you think that the rapidly growing chorus of anti-feminist men and women are just going to stand by silently while it happens?

Feminists are losing their grip on the imagination and consciousness of the culture. Their lies and hypocrisy are being exposed. That will escalate in the future, IMO, and feminists are far too wed to their propaganda to ever really abandon it. So in that sense, their efforts to co-opt men's issues will be under constant assault.

Things are not near as simple as you seem to think, with all respect.

[–]GenderEqualityKing 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IMULTRAHARDCORE 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]GenderEqualityKing 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]GenderEqualityKing 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Almost everyone is aware of the feminism that they think they know, the feminism they like, but the lay person (unfortunately) is just not going to be aware of the shortcomings of the modern feminist movement without doing a bit of research first. Frankly, they're not going to just "take your word" for it (and they shouldn't). To believe you, they're going to have to investigate it themselves.

Moreover, the cognitive dissonance they experience when their "idea" of feminism is challenged is not going to make them any more likely to do the necessary research to come to a more measured, critical perspective of the feminist movement.

The only way to overcome this cognitive dissonance is by appealing to their sense of familiarity, by acknowledging what is good about the feminist movement before exploring the less-than-savory underbelly of it, the side that is foreign to much of the general public still.

And when I talk about what is good about the feminist movement, I'm not just referring to what was good about the movement fifty years ago. I'm talking about what is good about the movement as it exists today. And, to be fair (and rational), feminism is not ALL bad, it is multifaceted enough to be worthy of more nuanced analysis (as is the MRM). I think even the most outspoken critic of the feminist movement could acknowledge the fact that there is considerable dissension within the feminist movement still (e.g., sex-positive feminism versus sex-negative feminism, second-wave feminism versus third-wave feminism, marxist feminism versus post-modern feminism, etc.).

Without using this approach as your starting point, AVFM becomes the ideological antipode to feminism and when I use the term antipode, I am not just referring to the antipode of all that is bad about feminism but all that is good about the movement as well. So, when I talk about AVFM being exposed for what it really is, I'm referring to it being exposed as an extremist counterpoint to mainstream, "conventional" feminism (the "familiar," innocuous form of feminism that everyone is taught to support from grade school). It's one thing for AVFM to be dismissed as a hate group by the MAINSTREAM press, but it's another for the MRM to be associated with hate, so that any discussion of men's issues becomes evidence of misogyny, etc. This would be the worst-case scenario (for the MRM and for society), and I'm pretty sure that this is what is going to happen, unfortunately.

[–]themountaingoat 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]ThePigman[S] -8 points-7 points-6 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]GenderEqualityKing 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

But what if, to the general public, you're Stormfront and the NAACP is feminism? Does that make a difference in your calculus?

Is it responsible for "Stormfront" to represent the voice of feminists like me within the MRM?

Moreover, is it responsible for the mainstream media to present Stormfront as the "voice" of the MRM when it's just one voice among many?

The only (obvious) purpose of interviewing AVFM is to do a solid hatchet job of the MRM, which they will do (with or without your help). The best you can do is to speak as individuals, not as representatives of the MRM. Talk about feminists in the MRM, talk about the diversity of perspectives in the MRM, talk about misogyny in the MRM, talk about disagreements within the MRM, don't paint a homogenous picture of the movement. Force people to SEE the nuance, even points of view (like mine) that you obviously disagree with.

Otherwise, you're playing right into the hands of the mainstream media.

[–]ThePigman[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]GenderEqualityKing 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigman[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GenderEqualityKing 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]kkaiju 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]truthjusticeca 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Pornography_saves_li 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link