I'm sure this is going to be completely fair and unbiased.
Wasn't the whole MRA thing dragged in to existence to combat aggressive and/or idiotic feminism? The kind that shit all over the concept of equal rights?
I consider them to be the lesser of two evils because of my experience with militant feminists, but Christ they come off as women haters sometimes.
Dean not looking at the feminist was a BRILLIANT move, and here's why: Anything even 'hinting' of a direct 'debate' would have made her come across as her being bullied by him. By (almost) not acknowledging her presence, there was nothing to trigger ANY 'protect the female' instinct, and since she couldn't dispute any of his facts, the 'professor' was reduced to a boring, and irrelevant mouthpiece of cliche feminist factoids.
[QUOTE=DeeCeeTeeBee;45042687]Wasn't the whole MRA thing dragged in to existence to combat aggressive and/or idiotic feminism? The kind that shit all over the concept of equal rights?
I consider them to be the lesser of two evils because of my experience with militant feminists, but Christ they come off as women haters sometimes.[/QUOTE]
yeah that's how it might have been in concept at one point if you wanna be optimistic about its intended goal, but if there was ever any kinda reasonable core to it then it's long since been hijacked by walking shitbags like Paul Elam and TAA and every MRA who follows them
I was kind of hoping that the guy representing them would look like Ryan gosling and be really articulate.
As for the professor she really doesnt know much other than basic statements and statistics that get thrown around all the time.
"Why is your group a hate group"
Top tier debating there.
[QUOTE=DeeCeeTeeBee;45042687]Wasn't the whole MRA thing dragged in to existence to combat aggressive and/or idiotic feminism? The kind that shit all over the concept of equal rights?
I consider them to be the lesser of two evils because of my experience with militant feminists, but Christ they come off as women haters sometimes.[/QUOTE]
Nonononono SH told me it was founded b Paul Elam to rape women. Check your privelede
[QUOTE=Cone;45042731]yeah that's how it might have been in concept at one point if you wanna be optimistic about its intended goal, but if there was ever any kinda reasonable core to it then it's long since been hijacked by walking shitbags like Paul Elam and TAA and every MRA who follows them[/QUOTE]
It was born as a reactionary movement to armchair activists and the people in it are mostly armchair activists themselves. That kind of thing is bound to get hijacked since the most inflammatory voice is the loudest and it's grievance oriented rather than action oriented.
Almost nothing will or would have come of them since if they cared about doing things then there's already plenty of real ways they can help, same as no-one cares about radical feminists since the chance of gynocratic revolution is slim to none.
[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;45042824]Nonononono SH told me it was founded b Paul Elam to rape women. Check your privelede[/QUOTE]
hahaha good joke
oh wait ur srs
:((
Why doesn't these presenters just shut up and let him finished.
So basically this is going to be dickwaving vs titwaving.
Yeah okay.
[QUOTE=Cone;45042731]yeah that's how it might have been in concept at one point if you wanna be optimistic about its intended goal, but if there was ever any kinda reasonable core to it then it's long since been hijacked by walking shitbags like Paul Elam and TAA and every MRA who follows them[/QUOTE]
This sorta annoys me because you are seen as an anti women jackass if you even mention that radical feminists exist yet mention that their are radical MRAs and everyone thinks youre a fuckign revolutionary. Yes there are bad apples in both groups and yes there is a greater concentration of bad apples in MRA, but does that mean we should discount the opinion of all MRAs?
The man here is obviously a bit crazy, but he does bring up some relatively important things. He's very calm throughout and non confrontational. Also finally debunks that stupid lie about an article being posted on the FB page.
[editline]9th June 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=_Maverick_;45042776]"Why is your group a hate group"
Top tier debating there.[/QUOTE]
that was an unfortunately worded question but the man luckily understood it. A better wording would have been "why is your group considered a hate group?"
[QUOTE=DeeCeeTeeBee;45042687]Wasn't the whole MRA thing dragged in to existence to combat aggressive and/or idiotic feminism? The kind that shit all over the concept of equal rights?
I consider them to be the lesser of two evils because of my experience with militant feminists, but [b]Christ they come off as women haters sometimes.[/b][/QUOTE]
The sad fact is that's what they are at their core. There may be a few of them who want to deal with genuine issues, but the "movement" is at its heart just reactionary anti-feminism opposed to women's rights and consequently women in general, and most if not all of the big organizations for MRAs, IE A Voice For Men (the group hosting this conference in Detroit), are just hate groups. Like it or not [url=http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-uncomfortable-truths-behind-mens-rights-movement/]this article[/url] sums up the mentality held by most of them quite well.
Also, to tear into this debate itself, the MRA says some outright bullshit, like claiming he as a man makes less than women, which is statistically incorrect, and also claims that AVFM does not encourage violence against women when their founder and leader has personally and publicly made numerous threats against women.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;45044552]Also, to tear into this debate itself, the MRA says some outright bullshit, like claiming he as a man makes less than women, which is statistically incorrect, and also claims that AVFM does not encourage violence against women when their founder and leader has personally and publicly made numerous threats against women.[/QUOTE]
The anthem of AVFM is literally "[URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHslWTN1zsE"]fuck their shit up[/URL]".
[url]http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/a-war-on-women[/url]
[quote]One kind of abuse that is undeniable is the vilification of individual women on certain men’s group websites. The best example of that may be Register-Her, a registry of women who “have caused significant harm to innocent individuals either by the direct action of crimes like rape, assault, child molestation and murder, or by the false accusation of crimes against others.” The site was set up by Paul Elam, the blogger behind A Voice for Men, less than two weeks after Ball’s suicide. “If Mary Jane Rottencrotch decides to falsely accuse her husband of domestic violence in order to get the upper hand in a divorce,” Elam boasted on his Internet radio show, “we can publish all her personal information on the website, including her name, address, phone number … even her routes to and from work.”[/quote]
This is the kind of person officially endorsed by the Men's Rights subreddit. AVFM is linked as required reading in their sidebar.
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;45044649]The anthem of AVFM is literally "[URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHslWTN1zsE"]fuck their shit up[/URL]".
[url]http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/a-war-on-women[/url]
This is the kind of person officially endorsed by the Men's Rights subreddit. AVFM is linked as required reading in their sidebar.[/QUOTE]
But does the feminism subreddit endorse radical feminists? Does the feminism subreddit represent all feminists?
Does a subreddit filled with a toxic kind of MRA really represent the whole movement?
Thomas Bell was a tragic story of a father trying to get custody of his kid, getting fucked in the ass by the courts and then going insane. He's supported because he's the kind of story MRAs were originally trying to prevent.
Also attacking Paul Elam's website like it's something only someone as evil as him could do, yet there's still a social media app dedicated to the exact same purpose except for men instead. It was hailed as a powerful women's rights tool and men who opposed it were listed as shitty MRAs and rapist.
In fact, the app still exists: [URL="https://onlulu.com/"]https://onlulu.com/[/URL]
Should we really be men's rights concerns because of AVFM?
[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;45043936]This sorta annoys me because you are seen as an anti women jackass if you even mention that radical feminists exist yet mention that their are radical MRAs and everyone thinks youre a fuckign revolutionary. Yes there are bad apples in both groups and yes there is a greater concentration of bad apples in MRA, but does that mean we should discount the opinion of all MRAs?
The man here is obviously a bit crazy, but he does bring up some relatively important things. He's very calm throughout and non confrontational. Also finally debunks that stupid lie about an article being posted on the FB page.[/QUOTE]
lots of perfectly sensible dudes mention the crazies and i can't really blame any of them at all for it, it's just that bringing them up super frequently for no reason is a really big part of dudes like TAA's reactionary kneejerk "rationale." like look at Thunderf00t's videos on it, he uses the same cherry-picked image of that one woman every time because his whole argument hinges on him being incapable of accepting that anyone other than her dumb-faced caricature exists.
the problem with MRA as an idea is that it's supposedly a reaction to crazy feminists, but it's the idea that a significant enough portion of feminists are actually out to hurt men, to the point that an actual activist movement needs to exist to combat them, that's intrinsically ignorant at best and downright misogynist at worst. so as the group has these kinds of roots it's far more reasonable to pick out the best examples of that intrinsic shittiness with MRA rather than feminism, cos feminism isn't inherently unnecessary and stupid.
I'm as sick of MRAs as I am of radical feminists. Every time this topic comes up it pisses me off.
what about we let them both in, then lock them inside and set fire to the building
[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;45044841]But does the feminism subreddit endorse radical feminists? Does the feminism subreddit represent all feminists?
Does a subreddit filled with a toxic kind of MRA really represent the whole movement?
Thomas Bell was a tragic story of a father trying to get custody of his kid, getting fucked in the ass by the courts and then going insane. He's supported because he's the kind of story MRAs were originally trying to prevent.
Also attacking Paul Elam's website like it's something only someone as evil as him could do, yet there's still a social media app dedicated to the exact same purpose except for men instead. It was hailed as a powerful women's rights tool and men who opposed it were listed as shitty MRAs and rapist.
In fact, the app still exists: [URL="https://onlulu.com/"]https://onlulu.com/[/URL]
Should we really be men's rights concerns because of AVFM?[/QUOTE]
A key difference is that with feminism the vocal minority is just that, it's a minority, few people take them seriously, and they're not a major threat to anyone unless walls of text can somehow kill you, with MRAs, well, we know how their radicals can turn out, and their movement is run and defined by these radicals. I think it is worth pointing out how toxic AVFM is when they're the first mens rights group that was capable of organizing this big convention, they're setting themselves up as the face of the movement, so yes I think we should notice when that face practically has swastika shaped pupils.
Also, since you brought up a custody battle I should point out that studies show that men seeking custody of their children get it 70% of the time.
Also also, looking at that app you linked, it doesn't strike me as being the same as publishing a registry with all the personal information of people who MRAs want to kill.
I'm amazed that such large groups of people have convinced themselves that these sorts of mundane self generated issues are worth as much time and attention as they are giving it. It's the same thing with people shitting on Obama for chewing gum during a ceremony. If only that fervor and action was used on something like, oh I don't know, helping the homeless or helping reform veteran care that would be grand. Rather we'd prefer to sit around and argue over problems that don't really even exist.
Before some drone comes here and shouts off a few statements to try and drag me into a worthless debate over nothing, remember that modern day feminism isn't even going to be categorized as historically impacting, meaning it's all for nothing. And I hate to tell you, Wollstonecraft would be absolutely mortified and disgusted with modern day feminism. Margaret Fuller would probably slap the femen folks for their appalling behavior and insult to her laborious work for starting the real feminist movement that shaped modern day society as we see it today.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;45045511]I'm amazed that such large groups of people have convinced themselves that these sorts of mundane self generated issues are worth as much time and attention as they are giving it. It's the same thing with people shitting on Obama for chewing gum during a ceremony. If only that fervor and action was used on something like, oh I don't know, helping the homeless or helping reform veteran care that would be grand. Rather we'd prefer to sit around and argue over problems that don't really even exist.
Before some drone comes here and shouts off a few statements to try and drag me into a worthless debate over nothing, remember that modern day feminism isn't even going to be categorized as historically impacting, meaning it's all for nothing. And I hate to tell you, Wollstonecraft would be absolutely mortified and disgusted with modern day feminism. Margaret Fuller would probably slap the femen folks for their appalling behavior and insult to her laborious work for starting the real feminist movement that shaped modern day society as we see it today.[/QUOTE]
the suffragettes set fire to things, detonated shit, and had a group dedicated to jujutsu-ing angry cops. i think they would probably be cool with some topless women shouting some things
[editline]9th June[/editline]
i think when you can describe a movement as "had a group dedicated to jujutsu-ing angry cops" most complaints about their later actions become kinda invalid
[QUOTE=Cone;45045086]lots of perfectly sensible dudes mention the crazies and i can't really blame any of them at all for it, it's just that bringing them up super frequently for no reason is a really big part of dudes like TAA's reactionary kneejerk "rationale." like look at Thunderf00t's videos on it, he uses the same cherry-picked image of that one woman every time because his whole argument hinges on him being incapable of accepting that anyone other than her dumb-faced caricature exists.
the problem with MRA as an idea is that it's supposedly a reaction to crazy feminists, but it's the idea that a significant enough portion of feminists are actually out to hurt men, to the point that an actual activist movement needs to exist to combat them, that's intrinsically ignorant at best and downright misogynist at worst. so as the group has these kinds of roots it's far more reasonable to pick out the best examples of that intrinsic shittiness with MRA rather than feminism, cos feminism isn't inherently unnecessary and stupid.[/QUOTE]
The problem I believe rests right now is the constant push for more to be done about women's rights and less to be done about men's is now based on completely flawed statistics and speculation.
I think the most prominent example of this is the pay gap statistic. Most of these charts etc. talk about senior members of companies such as managers and CEOs. My issue with this is based around a question I had:
"aren't most of these employees being exemplified around 40-50 years old, AKA brought up in a different time where education was more biased to men vs. women?"
Because most of these people would've gone through school in the 60s/70s, where education for women was put behind that of men. There's so many studies linking level of education to the pay gap, so shouldn't this explain the current gap? No matter how much you put towards these issues and train young women now in school, the older generation who have already completed their schooling etc. isn't going to magically balance itself out.
Which is where my major issue for the future of men comes from. It's pretty common around here that young women and girls get preferential treatment and better marks in school. So by logic wouldn't this mean a reversal in the pay gap towards women? If women have a higher education on average than men, won't we also see higher pay for women?
Which is where the issue for men comes in. There is much uncertainty over our future because of the way our society is right now. We're basically becoming our stereotype. We don't know if this will make us equal or less.
Jobs right now are a limited resource, and more jobs occupied by women means less occupied by men. With around only 10% of males and 40% of women being homemakers, I hope you can see where the concern comes from.
It all comes from pure speculation and Bullshit statistics from both sides. Just one side is more accepted than the other
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
