Where are the radical MRAs?

rapiertwit · 2013-10-25T10:01:47+00:00

http://hypervocal.com/news/2011/update-man-who-set-himself-on-fire-on-courthouse-steps-did-so-in-name-of-fathers-rights/

This guy only hurt himself, but when someone lashes out at others in the name of men's rights, it will likely be a dad who's been fucked over every which way in the legal system - looking at jail time due to child support that's impossible for him to keep up with, unable to see his kids, or both.

In my opinion a radical "wing" would be a bad thing for the men's movement. The problem with men's issues is that people aren't programmed to think of men as being weak or being victims. And that's not just a systemic cultural phenomenon - it's innate to the male/female dyad of human nature. The voices that will overcome this prejudices are vulnerable voices, not hard ones.

TRPACC · 2013-10-25T09:13:29+00:00

A voice for men use radical tactics to get the conversation going in the mainstream media, with plenty of success now too.

5th_Law_of_Robotics · 2013-10-25T13:19:15+00:00

I'm sure there are some nuts who identify as MRA. It's impossible to have a group of any size without someone going a little too far with it.

That being said I think our radicals are more reigned in because men in general and MRAs in particular aren't allowed to get away with much.

So for instance female feminists in Toronto felt free to block exits and pull the fire alarm on an men's issues conference because both women and feminists are given a much freer hand. Women face lower punishments and people are reluctant to really call out feminists on their antics.

Men and MRAs don't get that benefit of the doubt.

c0mputar · 2013-10-25T15:32:12+00:00

AVfM is more "radical" than this sub. Take from that what you will.

sibqm_lmvm · 2013-10-25T05:34:48+00:00

We have radicals. They don't really like this sub, though. Check the red pill subreddit.

Rattatoskk · 2013-10-26T12:53:49+00:00

As an MRA who grew up in the 80's, I can assure you that I am both "radical", and "gnarly".

Cowabunga doodz!

rightsbot · 2013-10-25T05:18:17+00:00

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

2013-10-25T20:35:55+00:00

Radicals spearheaded good movements. Any activism needs radicals in one way or other for the movement to win. Intellectual radicalism is best for public awareness and forming a base for the movement.

C0CKPUNCHER · 2013-10-25T07:10:24+00:00

If you think pick up artists are looking for non mutual relationships - then what they are discussing is actually pretty sinister - I don't think we can pretend they aren't part of the mrm even though the main body doesn't agree with them. That would make them equivalent to feminist radicals.

Pecanpig · 2013-10-25T14:15:00+00:00

They are over at /r/TheRedPill because we don't tolerate their crap in here.

real-boethius · 2013-10-25T05:26:03+00:00

Radicals in Social Movements

The early feminist movement sought for wealthy women the right to vote. It split on the question of the use of violent actions such as arson, poisoning, and dangerous actions such as running onto race courses and disrupting horse races. The peaceful ones called themselves suffragists. Those who were more tolerant of violence were called suffragettes. "Deeds not words" was the motto of Emmeline Pankhurst's WSPTU.

As their success has grown, feminists have increasingly relied on the use of the legal system and state sanctioned force and violence e.g. the jailing of men who cannot pay “child support” based on income that was imputed and exceeds their actual or possible earnings, or the jailing of men on the basis of false accusations of domestic violence or sexual assault.

Saul Alinsky pointed out in “Rules for Radicals” that Gandhi adopted a policy of non-violent resistance to the British because he had no choice because the native Indians had no weapons. Later Gandhi maintained a discreet silence when Nehru used force against Pakistan in the dispute over Kashmir, to Nehru's great surprise. He also repeatedly decried the lack of forceful resistance by Indians to British atrocities. So adherence to non-violence can be a tactic dressed up as a principle.

The American Revolutionaries were considered a terrorist organization by the British. As is often the case with such organizations, it was supported by hostile powers, in this case by the French government. The Declaration of Independence complains about the lack of response to just complaints: “Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury”. Independence was achieved only by the use of force. “We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.”

The African National Congress used violence and force in the struggle for black majority rule in South Africa, including practices such as “necklacing” (placing a burning tyre filled with gasoline around someone's neck). They were allied with radicals of the South African Communist Party.

Moderate activists in the Civil Rights movement were matched by radicals such as the Black Panthers and Malcolm X.

Even the hippies had the Weather Underground which conducted campaigns of bombings. At least one police officer was killed, in a bank robbery, by members of the Weather Underground.

The Fabian socialists had as counterparts the communists who killed tens of millions.

The violent Irish Republican Army was the radical wing of the Irish nationalist movement Sinn Féin.

Non-violence is the posture of the weak, as we saw with Gandhi. When the Dalai Lama's predecessors ruled Tibet as a theocratic dictatorship, they did not shy away from using force to impose their will, including the use of military force. Now that he no longer has access to such means, the Dalai Lama has become an apostle of non-violence. Perhaps this conversion is sincere, but he has little choice in the matter.

qemist · 2013-10-25T23:26:35+00:00

I do not in any way support, condone, encourage or “understand” extra-legal or violent action in support of any social movement.

Such as the American Revolution and Abolition?

ThePigmanAgain · 2013-10-25T10:16:01+00:00

"I do not in any way support, condone, encourage or “understand” extra-legal or violent action in support of any social movement."

You are a fool, therefore i will not read your crap.

shadowbanned6 · 2013-10-25T09:57:03+00:00

Look at the down-votes, and you have the answer.

Great comments. Please read the private message I sent and reply as I suggested there.

Frankly_No · 2013-10-25T06:02:26+00:00

FYI it is actually called the MRM or MHRM, or the men's (human) rights movement.

2013-10-25T07:53:31+00:00

I actually wondered about this recently. Imagine the next meeting at some Canadian university if a group of masked men would protect, without engaging in physical contact, the attendants. How would this look like? Not good...

Title	Where are the radical MRAs?
Author	real-boethius
Upvotes	5
Comments	54
Date	October 25, 2013 5:16 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1p6cpl/where_are_the_radical_mras/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/where-are-the-radical-mras.1160474 https://theredarchive.com/post/1160474

Comments