Question Regarding the Correlation Between MRAs and the Right Wing/Libertarianism.

eggilicious · 2013-03-19T12:53:40+00:00

I'm pretty left wing. I think some of the more vocal MRA's are right leaning which gives the impression that the movement is right wing

ignatiusloyola · 2013-03-19T13:24:43+00:00

I am a socialist.

Socialism does seem to go hand-in-hand with "equality of outcome", but it doesn't necessarily have to. Enforcing equality of outcome doesn't actually resolve economic inequality, in my mind, and for that reason I reject the necessary link between economics and the gender movement.

There are fiscally conservative feminists (Hoff Sommers is one), by the way. Feminism does not imply socialism, nor does socialism imply feminism, even if those are commonly found together.

Leinadro · 2013-03-19T13:39:15+00:00

Mras can come from any part of the political spectrum just as feminists can. Trying paint all of either as left or right or otherwise is just a gross generalization, usually a smear tactic being passed off as an actual argument.

The point of making such generalizations is like so:

Mras are right wing and since right wingers are bad that means mras are bad. Thus saving them the trouble of responding to what mras are actually saying.

Where im from they call that strawmanning.

DavidByron · 2013-03-19T14:07:53+00:00

Well I am communist. You could point out that there's always been an anti-feminist strain of socialism eg Belfort Bax In general socialism is about equality as a function of class, not sex (although it would be very odd to care about one and not the other I think). Feminists undermine socialism by various means, the most obvious being that they are anti-equality. But also just by pretending that sex is the more important axis of equality. Feminists have been saying shit like that since Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B Anthony opposed the vote for blacks on the grounds that being a woman was (according to them) worse than being a former slave. Or when they (the early feminists) black-balled Victoria Woodhull, the first person to publish Karl Marx works in the USA, and a local labor leader.

Feminists who are socialists are feminists first and anything else a long way behind. It's cult-like in its dogma. If you're identifying as a feminist it doesn't much matter what else you call yourself because it wont have much if any effect on your thinking.

Morichalion · 2013-03-19T14:18:51+00:00

Is men's rights and gender equality exclusive to just libertarian thought? Can men's rights advocates also be socialists? Can socialists also be bigots?

No. Yes. Yes.

Men's rights is an issue. Like abortion or gun control.

Libertarians, Democrats, and Republicans have philosophies that they try to apply to a variety of issues.

The philosophies have to generate an opinion on damn near ever issue, because damn near everything is an issue that government is going to have an opinion.

Issues like abortion or gun control are very defined. They've argued about for the last twenty years almost constantly. Every party has had plenty of time to write their reasoning down in stone.

The issues relating to men's rights are a bit less defined. We haven't spent twenty years arguing about how to work towards just treatment for men, we've spent longer than that figuring out better ways to ignore it.

Basically, your party is going to be defining your thoughts on any one subject.

If you're a Democrat, you're probably pro gun control, and pro choice.

If you're a Republican, you're probably pro gun rights, and pro life.

If you're a Libertarian, you're probably pro gun rights, and pro choice.

Given the lack of official opinions on this subject, one can be in any party, and come up with any opinion on any men's rights issues.

Pecanpig · 2013-03-19T13:46:55+00:00

Is men's rights and gender equality exclusive to just libertarian thought? Can men's rights advocates also be socialists? Can socialists also be bigots?

No yes and yes.

imbecile · 2013-03-19T12:54:04+00:00

A common belief held by libertarians is that all humans have the same potential to be great without the need for things like affirmative action.

That's a very commie idea.

The libertarian notion that independent people acting in free markets somehow magically solve all problems is pretty much the same as the communist notion that free people acting in independent communities magically solve all problems.

But ultimately communism vehemently opposes classes by birthright, which is why it is very incompatible with feminism that postulates an oppressed and an oppressor class by birthright.

Also, if feminists were truly left wing, they wouldn't whine about there being not enough female bosses, they would be against bosses altogether.

That said, I don't consider myself a commie, but you probably would.

almightybob1 · 2013-03-19T12:57:36+00:00

Is men's rights and gender equality exclusive to just libertarian thought?

No.

Can men's rights advocates also be socialists?

I would describe myself as left-wing/liberal. Your stereotypical European really. Some people would probably call me a socialist. So yes.

Can socialists also be bigots?

Of course. Anyone can be a bigot. You need look no further than your male friend you were arguing with on Facebook for an example.

aTypical1 · 2013-03-19T13:38:22+00:00

I'm a democratic socialist. Of course I also prefer to identify as masuclinst as opposed to mra for nuanced reasons.

getfuckingreal · 2013-03-19T13:44:16+00:00

It's right wing because a lot of leftists tend to group people by race, gender, religion, sexuality and try to correct for the sins of the past against those groups. Libertarians and the right tend to see the individual, so something like women's issues having more importance than men's issues would appeal to a leftist more because of women being disenfranchised in the past.

blueoak9 · 2013-03-19T15:00:16+00:00

One criticism the MRM has of the current gender system is that female privilege is enforced by state mechanisms - family courts, unequal prosecution and sentencing of female criminals, gender bigotrry and discrimination in the public schools - and so there is an anti-statist element to the MRM. Well, anarchists are anti-statist; does anyone call them "right wing"?

"Is men's rights and gender equality exclusive to just libertarian thought? Can men's rights advocates also be socialists?"

Funny, I recall a time when socialists insisted on radical equality. It used to be a hallmark of socialist consciousness. In fact that was one thing that distinguished them from Communists, who privileged what we would call the blue-collar class over everyone else. So maybe your friend is not quite the socialist he imagines himself.

"Can socialists also be bigots?"

Obviously, yes. In fact your friend sounds like a socialist gender bigot.

Mythandros · 2013-03-19T14:30:13+00:00

Everyone can be a bigot and beliefs come in all sorts of combinations. That's the danger of putting a label like "Libertarian" or "Conservative" on someone. They may not hold the same beliefs as another "Libertarian" or "Conservative".

In this case, I believe mens rights is a completely separate topic from libertarianism/conservatism/etc.

Mens rights is just mens rights. There is no political agenda other than seeing equal rights for men.

richd506 · 2013-03-19T17:20:08+00:00

I would describe myself as being to the left but only because I happen to agree with a vast number of left-wing issues. It's an incidental thing and not the result of me 'consciously' subscribing to an ideology. I try to treat every issue by it's own merit.

If you asked me a few years ago whether or not I supported feminism, I would say yes. Because at that time, I honestly believed that it was a movement in support of true gender equality. But over time I was noticing more and more that the movement was riddled with hypocrisy. Eventually, with the help of girlwriteswhat, I came to dismiss the movement as a whole. I feel that a true movement for equality should address the whole of society and not just rally to support one segment of the population over another. Otherwise it's inherently an inequal movement.

I can see why men's-rights issues would be appealing to folks on the right. Conservatives are often times the punching bag in feminist ideology. Therefore it would make sense that anti-feminist ideas would have some appeal to conservatives. There, I believe is the overlap.

However, I don't think it's impossible to support men's issues and not be a conservative. As I've mentioned before, I am for true gender equality and therefore cannot support feminism because it isn't. And anyone who calls themselves a liberal and actually means it, I feel ought to agree with me. But that's just my opinion.

2013-03-19T17:45:31+00:00

I think this correlation comes from the false polarity that comes with political issues in the US. If the left is for something, then the right must be against it. If the right is for something, then the left must be against it. Look at abortion, gay marriage, global warming, and unions. The Feminist movement is mostly liberal/left wing, due to close overlap with the pro-choice side of the abortion debate. It is falsely assumed that MRAs must be the polar opposite, and therefore conservative/right wing.

jolly_mcfats · 2013-03-19T15:12:25+00:00

Anyone can be a bigot, and I'd probably say that almost everyone has prejudices. Denying this only makes it harder to recognize and fight your prejudices.

I tend towards the left, due to a combination of being socially liberal and not liking the way the republican party has treated science for the last 30 years. I wouldn't call myself a socialist, but I do think that there is a time and place for social programs, and that free market capitalism doesn't work like it is "supposed" to when you have really inequal concentrations of wealth (because the wealthy party can set market norms that force competitors out of business, even if that competitor has a better product, and more qualified engineers.

So... yeah, there are MRAs of all political stripes.

giegerwasright · 2013-03-19T14:03:23+00:00

Here's the thing; The left wing normals to bigotry against straights, whites, and males. And most of all straight white males. You can buy yourself some social capitol among them by donating large amounts of money or by capitulating like a good houseboy, but you will never be seen as equal or entitled to an equal voice. You must toe the line without question or hesitation. You have to act like you're a black GOP member. It's the same dynamic.

The real enemy of the left is the guileless wealthy who seek to exploit society for their own profit. Some of them are white. Some of them are straight. Some of them are men. Some of them are straight white men. But some of them are not white. Some of them are not straight. Some of them are not men. And some of them are any combination.

Do you know why the left chooses to villify white people, straight people, men, and straight white men? I do. Because money. Because if they villify the guileless wealthy, those guileless wealthy won't bother trying to purchase their approval with donations to "the cause".

And that's why straight white men who can't afford to purchasethat social capitol get the short end of the stick. We're not good enough to be invited to the table. We're just good enough to mop the floors. And that's why I have abandoned the left. They only ever saw me as a punching bag, a potential source of income, and a drone. I demand more respect than that. I demand to be treated as an equal. And they refuse those demands.

Ironically, I have found the right more welcoming. Even when they know my politics, they have been far more willing to openly discuss them and respect them. Which does make a certain amount of sense since my arbitrary characteristics make me more of one of their target demographics. Except. I am neither right nor a libertarian. I believe very strongly in the value of social equality, equal opportunity (NOT equal outcome, you lazy twats), and the duty of a society to help prevent it's less privileged, less lucky, or less abled brethren from falling too far. But I also believe in the value of acknowledging and learning from the repercussions of their actions, carrying personal responsability for those repercussions, and to carry themselves as if they've matured past the intellect of a petulant six year old. I'm an atheist. I think responsible and moderate recrestional drug use can affect one's life in a profoundly positive manner and i think that anybody should be able to marry anyone who wants to marry them back. Or fuck.

So. I'm none of the above.

Aaod · 2013-03-19T14:17:01+00:00

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs " Karl Marx. Different people obviously have different abilities and different needs. Trying to force everyone into all having the same level of ability is laughable but massively rewarding those with certain kinds of abilities while punishing others for the same level of abilities only in different categories is rather wrong. What we need to push for is equality of starting place/opportunity and equality in the workplace not equality in ability which is why things like affirmative action are dumb to the point of being animal farm like. The famous quote of “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” comes to mind as does the thought that on a farm different animals have different jobs and they are all important without one the others fail but why are some jobs given so much more reward.

This isn't even getting into the fact a some socialists merely want the workers to have the means of production as opposed to a strong state. Not to mention affirmative action if we were going to use it would be far better used on a wealth/money based instead of race or gender qualifier. Personally I think it is a bad idea because it doesn't tackle the root of the problem myself.

TLDR equality of result is not the same thing as equality of opportunity.

thescientist8371 · 2013-03-19T15:43:42+00:00

From my experience, most MRAs and people who support men rights come from all walks of life. Unlike hard core feminists who are almost decisively just liberal/left wing, MRAs are right wing, libertarian, socialist, anarchist, etc.

I'm a moderate liberal (btw).

texasjoe · 2013-03-19T17:14:46+00:00

It's neither left, right, or center. I like to avoid thinking about it as a political movement, because politicians try to garner votes based on gender. If people start thinking that it is a right wing/libertarian movement, then politicians will try and get votes from MRA's. It's an equality movement. Nothing more, and nothing less.

hugolp · 2013-03-19T17:24:21+00:00

Im a left libertarian market anarchist sympathetic to MR. Does that break your friends one dimensional political scale?

rodvanmechelen · 2013-03-20T02:35:19+00:00

Roy Schenk, author of The Other Side of the Coin, is (or was) a socialist. I think there are a lot of MRAs who come to the party as a reaction against feminist hate and bigotry. I met Roy once and he seemed like a decent chap. Most socialists, I suspect, don't understand that socialism is inherently violent or that it violates human rights. Most of the MRAs I've known did not identify themselves as libertarians (or libertarian leaning) even though most of them were.

Abbrevi8 · 2013-05-09T06:48:48+00:00

I find it amazing that people don't think feminism is well and surely on the left.

rightsbot · 2013-03-19T11:56:18+00:00

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

texasjoe · 2013-03-19T13:16:51+00:00

Well Feminism is just gendered Marxism so of course your friend is going to support socialism.

Can men's rights advocates also be socialists?

Sure you could, just look at Communist Russia.

But you have to consider that the particular brand of socialism being pushed in the US is actively destroying our industry and economy. You can't 1. provide tons of services for the poor and indolent 2. promote people based on sex and race instead of merit and 3. disadvantage THE most productive people in society (men) and expect to have a thriving society. Just look at our debt, bro. This ship is sinking fast.

OuiCrudites · 2013-03-19T14:38:02+00:00

There are mra's from all political sides. Institutionalized feminism has its origins in Marxism and in the present day, gets most of their $$$ and power from the Left. That said, the Right is not very good for men's rights either. Of course socialists can be bigots. Their entire ethos is about bringing down the white man.

texasjoe · 2013-03-19T15:20:26+00:00

Libertarianism is not right-wing. Considering both the left and right are authoritarian in nature, it's impossible.

pocketknifeMT · 2013-03-19T15:40:13+00:00

I know there are more than a few Ancaps in here, which is what libertarians become once they do enough reading, and like internal consistency in their worldview.

There is only one Law: The NAP.

Because it doesn't allow for the formation of a State, there is no body to lobby for goodies and extra rights, and the abridgment of other people's rights.

The MRA is in line with this because by and large all the issues we take seriously are State Policy run amok, like it always does.

Funcuz · 2013-03-19T16:45:27+00:00

I suppose the reason that the MRM is considered to be a right-wing movement is because it attacks most of the left's sacred cows.

When it comes to left-wing/right-wing I really just don't give a shit anymore. They're all hypocrites and crooks. In fact , I just don't care at all about ideology per se. All I know is that one side insists I give half my paycheque to the invisible man in the sky they assure me is really there while the other side insists that it should have the right to simply take half my paycheque so that it can hand out my money to the loser with the longest sob story.

It doesn't really matter in the end though. If people want to call me a right-wing nutcase for disagreeing with the legal policy that I have no rights to see my own kids then fine. Who's the real nut ?

King_Turnip · 2013-03-19T18:31:05+00:00

I'm pretty far to the right and pretty strongly libertarian, especially when compared to the vast body of redditors. I see lots of people on both the right and left. I don't see a lot of people in the middle; it seems like the huge majority that can't muster the will to have a political opinion also cannot be bothered to raise their voice in activism.

Re: socialist bigots. The Souphanathong backers in the Laotian Revolution (Viet backed socialists) actively campaigned on the genocide of the kaa (hill tribes,) the Soviets had their kulaks and the Holodomor, and so on. History says that socialism and bigotry are completly compatible.

cronus85 · 2013-03-19T23:32:53+00:00

I am on the left. Socialised medicine in particular is the best thing since sliced bread. And yes we can also be bigots, just as those on the right.

2013-03-20T00:59:40+00:00

No socio-economic system is immune to human nature, No socio-economic system is free from defect.

I think that sums up my thoughts pretty well.

CapnDancyPants · 2013-03-20T02:02:05+00:00

The Non-Aggression Principle is incompatible with socialism (and every non-libertarian belief system, as libertarianism is defined by the NAP). Deciding who can (supposedly) justly initiate violence against whom, requires some degree of active prejudicial discrimination, i.e. bigotry.

Of course, most people's thought systems are not internally consistent, so they will have some libertarian viewpoints, and some socialist viewpoints. Hell, that's why we have this bullshit right/left paradigm in the USA, where neither one is internally consistent!

Estephe · 2013-07-11T14:52:17+00:00

Left-Right. I am anti-interventionist war, so I am anti-left wing (Wilson, Soviet, Obama). No, I am anti-right wing (National Socialism, Bush)? It simply confuses people. People who do not like gulags associate "left wing" with Soviet genocide and people who do not like 3rd Reich camps associate "right" with these. ---- I don't like either. -----

Feminism is "left wing" because its very foundation is Marx-Engels-Marcuse. ---- So why not dump the "left-right" stuff and dump the confusion.

Neurotikitty · 2013-03-19T14:04:32+00:00

Can socialists also be bigots?

Can they not be?

That's not snark. The socialist ideology is based around class warfare. They always dehumanize one group they consider the "class enemy". This is the reason that socialism is often contrary to men's rights - because men, especially white men, have been declared the "class enemy".

But there are many other forms of liberalism besides socialism. A true liberalism that respects the autonomy and potential for self actualization of all individuals without regard to their sex or gender identification is certainly compatible with men's rights.

The political right is not conducive to men's rights either. The right wishes to preserve traditional gender roles - however, it has more or less capitulated on enforcing those roles for women. So it is doubling down on men, trying to coerce them into maintaining their tradition responsibilities despite enjoying few of the traditional advantages. This is why the right has supported punitive divorce and child support laws, male-only conscription, and one-sided domestic violence laws. In addition, the right favors economic policies that primarily benefit very rich and powerful men, to the disadvantage of the vast majority of men whose economic fortunes have been declining for decades.

In the U.S. at least, the left is a tool of feminism, and the right is the tool of the wealthy. The ordinary Joe is politically disenfranchised.

moros1988 · 2013-03-19T21:14:57+00:00

Socialists can be bigots, but so can libertarians.

The MRM movement is not on one side of the political spectrum.

Title	Question Regarding the Correlation Between MRAs and the Right Wing/Libertarianism.
Author	texasjoe
Upvotes	28
Comments	103
Date	March 19, 2013 11:55 AM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/1al66d/question-regarding-the-correlation-between-mras-/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/question-regarding-the-correlation-between-mras.1608520 https://theredarchive.com/post/1608520

Comments