Quote of the Day: Men's Rights "Activists"

Quoth David Futrelle

At its heart, men’s rights activism doesn’t really seem to be about activism at all. What the movement has turned into is a strange parody of “victim feminism,” an endless search for proof that men (despite earning more than women, heading up the overwhelming majority of companies and governments in the world, getting all the best movie roles, never having to wear heels, and so on and so on and so on) are in fact second-class citizens.

A brilliant piece on a group of people who have recently become a significantly annoying experience online. It doesn’t help matters that their members all too often intersect with right libertarians and Randroids and White Rights Activists (you can imagine what the latter are about)

Unfortunately MRA, much like libertarians are far too numerous online and can easily focus their attention into succesful entryist attempts. MRA entryism is the primary reason why most feminists have abandoned /r/feminism in reddit and have instead migrated to /r/feminisms which has a far more strict moderation policy allowing for deeper feminist discussion without endlessly devolving into What About Teh Mens! arguments.

PS: man boobz has become an instant favourite of mine. If only he would move out of Blogger’s crappy platform…

43 thoughts on “Quote of the Day: Men's Rights "Activists"

  1. That might be part of the whole picture but I think you should be aware of the almost omnipresent misandry brought to us nowadays by expectations, not-daring to refuse or even the domestic violence statistic. I am not protecting anything here, but there is more to it than we are used to see and most people just do not. Maybe, of course, you meet most of the described debatees online, but that's not all there is.

    1. I'm not sure what you mean about "not daring to refuse" or why you mention the domestic violence statistics. As for expectations of males, this is not a result of misandry (how could it? Those expectations are from other males) but because of how patriarchy enforces archetypes from which males are not allowed to stray. I suggest you check the Tough Guise documentary.

  2. "how could it? Those expectations are from other males" -> Doesn't make it any better or any less misandric, I see.

    It's kind of tricky to explain, when you grow up in a family with matriarchic tendencies, but it's like the "you are male, so cary these bags. and kill that spider. and fix the fridge. and do this n that. because i say so" -> Not said but felt from one and expected from the other side. Conditioning. From the age you can carry stuff. It's so f**kin' brainwashing that it took a while to get that out.

    Another story is about domestic violence. I think it's a shame that in the 21st century there are still cases male victims of it get a laugh and a "oh well, take it like a man or don't" as seen a couple of times and heard of. I think it does not matter what part the violence come from or what part is the victim, but society seems to think different about that.

    1. "how could it? Those expectations are from other males" -> Doesn't make it any better or any less misandric, I see.

      That's the thing, it's not "misandry". It doesn't make sense to call expectation of males towards males as "misandry". Such things are not caused because the male gender is hated or considered inferior, but because the societal expectations (formed primarily from male influence over the ages) expect a particular archetype in order to be considered a male. In other words, these are effects of the Patriarchy.

      The examples that you mention are all very valid and the drive to shoehorn males into particular roles regardless of how they feel about it is precicely how the patriarchy hurts males as well. The drive to "man up", the drive to be tough, manly, brooding, non-emotional, logical and so on. All of these are as much active as the drive towards females to be emotional, submissive, cute and non-assertive. The females finally rebelled against this oppression via feminism and trying to smash the patriarchy which is the root cause of it and it is why males should support feminism in this regard. Because by smashing the patriarchy and by smashing the gender binary, we are finally free to express our selves without being, as you correctly stated, brainwashed.

      Seriously, check out Tough Guise. You can find it online.

      1. I'd just like to give a resounding "Fuck yes!" to this comment.

      2. dbO: When you speak of "patriarchy", and sprinkle your talk with all manner of similar jargon, you reveal yourself as a participant in the feminist cult. Well, if that is your choice, so be it. But you ought to be aware of how silly you sound to the rest of the world. You see, feminism is *not the world*. It is only a small part of the world, but the rest of the world is a bit larger, and. . well. . it is getting rather annoyed with all of this semantic smoke and garbage.

        As for "MRAs": it is true, as you say, that they are getting more and more numerous — both in the USA and abroad (Europe, China, India, Mexico and South America, for starters.) MRAs — and non-feminists of every other description — are becoming a global force. Their numbers will continue to grow, and you ought to pause and wonder just why this is happening. I can assure you it is happening for a very good reason.

        But the smart plan is to pull in your horns and try to be sociable with these "barbarians" — seeing how they are infesting up the empire and settling permanently. 😉 They are your neighbors, like it or not. Oh…but you will learn to like it, I am sure. Most of them are only half-bad once you get to know them. The other half originates with YOU. So stop projecting… okay?

        And enough with the feminist subjectivism. I think we could all use a break from that stuff.

        1. You say nothing of substance in this post, other than some vague promises that MRAs are becoming a force to be reckoned with (lolwut), which I find hard to believe given how MRAs do no "A" at all. But do keep deluding yourself that you're relevant outside your internet soapboxes.

          1. Since you appear to know so much about MRAs, perhaps you would like to share some of your knowledge?

            I hope you will enlighten me. I live to learn.

          2. Your reply seems to partake of that quality as well.

            But again, would you be so kind as to enlighten us ( the non-feminist community) about these. . . "MRAs"?

  3. What a coincidence. I've been reading man boobz too. I also wrote an entry on the so-called "men's rights" movement which should appear pretty soon.

        1. Then perhaps you should write about the men's rights movement, and not about some other movement which is not about men's rights at all.

          1. Ah. Could you point me to this real men's rights movement then?

          2. Because he claims he has knowledge of this "true men's rights movement," and yet cannot take the time it would take him to give me ONE person's name, or ONE organization's name. So he is lying. Pure and simple.

            Let's face it, you are both part of the MRM, right? I already know what you guys REALLY are. You can't hide it from me.

          3. Oh . . . then you think I am really a feminist, when I told you I was a non-feminist? Why would I lie about a thing like that?

          4. All right, so he's calling me an MRA? Whatever. Sticks and stones.

            Again, I am non -feminist. That is more useful semantics. Beats "MRA", anyhow.

          5. You're not a "non-feminist", you're an anti-feminist, as is obvious from your blog. You may not throw your lot with MRAs but you have the same talking points. Unfortunately you seem to lack their luverly community which make you even less relevant.

          6. Are you saying that an "anti" feminist is NOT a "non" feminist?

            Re: "relevant". Relevant to what, or whom?

            How do you know who I throw my lot with? Psychic, are we?

          7. I'm saying that "non-feminist" is as irrelevant as "non-golfer". It doesn't make you part of a movement.

            How do you know who I throw my lot with? Psychic, are we?

            WTF are you smoking? You just outright told me with which group you don't throw your lot with.

          8. Oh… and he answered you very much to the purpose. He said it was not his job to educate you about (counter) – feminism.

          9. 1. If he can't take the time to name ONE person or ONE organization, then he is a liar and can go fuck himself.
            2. Bonus points for using the opposite of a tactic from Derailing for Dummies even though you are part of the oppressing class, you asshole.

          10. All right, I will point to it.

            I am pointing at YOU.

            YOU are the men's rights movement.

            I mean, you DO believe that men have rights…..don't you?

          11. I don't believe in "men's rights" any more than I believe in "consumer's rights," "gay rights" or "animal rights." Rights are universal or they are not rights.
            And no, I am not part of the "men's rights movement," because the "men's rights movement" has nothing to do with ethics or political theory.

  4. I’m a MRA woman and a left-libertarian. I really wish that people would actually address the serious faults of the movement(some of the issues are bullshit). There is some misogyny, yes, but I really can’t deny that feminism isn’t misandric on some level.

    I honestly wish people would get past identity politics and start working for *human* rights. Everyone has problems: queer or hetero, man or woman, racial minority or white. This polarizing us vs. them is just moronic and anti-human.

    1. I beg to differ. Feminism as a whole is not misandric on some level. Care to justify this statement?

      1. Ok. db0 I thought about it and I decided to dedicate one of my blog posts to this: http://musingsofaprohuman.blogspot.com/2011/06/my…. I seriously doubt you're going to agree with everything I said, but that is closer to my actual opinions(I admit that I had a knee jerk moment there). The good thing about Futrelle, *despite* my dislike for his writing and hasty conclusions is that he does bring the misogyny out in the open. If the MRM is going to gain any sort of traction it does need to deal with misogyny and get rid of it.

        There are things that I agree with and things I don't. In the end it depends on the issue being discussed(for men or women), what my actual opinion is. (The whole slutwalk fiasco for instance just shows how misogynistic AND misandric people can get[for various reasons, but because of how heated I am about it I won't expand on this] .)

        PS: That all said, I do like your blog, I don't agree with everything but it's not bad. 😉

      2. If misandry did not exist in the world as a whole, feminism as we know it would not exist. Misandry on some level is the nuclear force that binds feminism together, the fuel that makes it run, and the engine that propels it forward.

  5. What "us"? What "non-feminist community"? There's you, and you seem to be one community less. Do show me this "non-feminist community" that is eager to learn from poor ole me and I might consider it as long as you don't continue being obtuse.

Comments are closed.