We often here the cry of Toxic Masculinity in recent years.
If not those exact words, it will be some variation of how men are to blame for a cultural or social problem.
Teach men not to rape.
Mansplaining.
Manspreading.
Wearing inappropriate t-shirts (because people should not have the right to wear what they want to, right ladies?)
I think this is all a symptom of an aspect of human nature we could do with acknowledging, addressing and hopefully fixing.
Misandry.
The fear, distrust or hatred of men.
Sounds a bit far out there, doesn't it. A conspiracy theory about how the poor white man is oppressed?
It really isn't. It's not about systematic or cultural oppression, repression or suppression.
It's just a way of describing how society at large treats men.
First we must acknowledge the thing that prevents discussion of the subject.
The thing that has people scoff and laugh and mock.
That is, perhaps oxymoronically, most people (including those feminists we see deriding men and masculinity so often) love men.
They love the men that they personally know.
As a society we celebrate the men that touch our lives personally. We love our sons, our brothers, our fathers and uncles. We love to hold up heroes and point out the virtues of "good men."
How can we talk about societal neglect of men, cultural hatred of men, when this is true?
And that's the point. We love OUR men.
It is "other men" that are the problem.
Men we don't know are a danger.
Men we don't know are suspect.
Men we don't know could do us harm.
Simply put this is a bias that only effects men. It especially effects men from certain minorities, ethnic or racial.
Women simply don't have this bias against them.
A woman will rarely experience another human being frightened by their mere proximity. They will never need to worry about how they might be perceived by a stranger, or by a police officer, or by parents and staff at their children school.
None of this is because we're evil, or hateful, or because men deserve it.
It is not "because culture"
It is
because we're animals.
It's an understandable principle both bred and
socialised into us because it has been a FANTASTIC survival strategy for
the entire history of our species and in many others.
The thing is, we're smart animals, so we should be able to learn to do fucking better.
When we tolerate the sort of open and explicit misandry done in the name of "equality" we are manipulating people with the most base of our emotions.
It devalues those it is attempting to protect as well as those it maligns.
Remember, those men you do not know do belong to somebody.
That stranger in the street is somebody's father.
The man in the playground is a doting uncle.
The man arrested for manspreading is somebody's son.
Not all men are good people, so of course caution is understandable and necessary, but we should be careful that caution doesn't become bigotry.
The monsters in the world are a small minority and they are not effected by posters telling them to be less monstrous.
Don't judge all men by the actions of the monsters.
Try to judge them as you would judge the men you love.
Then we might take the first step to overcoming the stigma that masculinity is often stuck with.
To those reading that wish to cry misogyny, or declare one more important than the other.
You are the monsters in this world.
Misogyny is awful, equality of opportunity and universal human rights are a great thing.
Misogyny is simply not a serious problem in the West, nor in many other places. We already seek to redress sexism targeting women, and that's a great thing. You however condone sexism against men and declare it either less important or even nonexistant.
Your equality is supremacy wearing lipstick.
Showing posts with label Men's Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Men's Rights. Show all posts
Wednesday, 17 June 2015
Wednesday, 20 May 2015
PUA, don't hate the player, hate the Game.
Pick up Artists have a bad reputation.
Exploiting women for sex, teaching men to lie and manipulate to get what they want.
Sounds bad.
Some extreme ideologues want it categorised as rape (only when men do it, obviously, despite the protestations it would apply equally to all from law makers)
Now, I am not a PUA.
The very ideas behind the Game are against my personal philosophy.
I'd rather be lonely than have sex with a virtual stranger I need to lie to or manipulate.
That said, I will not judge other people for needing the crutch.
Because that is what it is, a crutch.
Not an evil and nefarious plan by men to rape unsuspecting willing women.
Many "beta nerds" (much like myself) are rather terrified by the prospect of dating and women in general.
This is not because they're stupid or unlikeable, it is because women hold all of the power and society is not afraid to shame men repeatedly since childhood to enforce a standard of behaviour.
We have a system whereby women will declare their independence and equality with one breath, but announce they still want a potential boyfriend to pay for everything when dating.
Simply put, the rules for modern courtship are a mess. We as men are told all sorts of things that we should and should not do. A lot of the "advice" contradicts itself.
Men's feelings on this are ignored or mocked, by men and women alike.
If you feel this way, you are defective. You are bad. You just need to be better.
PUA offers an alternative.
It tells vulnerable men exactly what to do to sleep with women and thereby have value as a man.
It does not shy away from truths, it does not attempt to make things equitable.
Most of the men that seek to learn "the game" do not WANT casual and meaningless sex, as strange as that sounds. It might be a bonus, but that's not what they are there for.
What they want is a way to meet women where they feel equal, where they feel capable, where they have some control.
I'd also suggest men want to feel desired, PUA offers this.
Now, some of this is exploitation of men's self consciousness.
Vulnerable men are taught to exploit women and derive self worth from this.
I'd suggest if you look deeper this is almost never the case.
When you get past the bravado, this is simply men boosting the confidence of other men. To make money or to do "good" is irrelevant. It's no different than makeup tutorials or fashion advice. It's no different than the plot of an enormous amount of romcoms. It is not dangerous or evil.
I'm sure a direct comparison between "the Game" and women's/teen magazines would show one is MUCH worse for dehumanising a gender and teaching to manipulate and lie, and that is the socially acceptable one.
While I dislike PUA as a lifestyle choice, it is not mine nor anyone else's place to judge.
I will extend my empathy to those men that feel they have no other choice, and hope it leads them to happiness and a woman (or women, I'm no tradcon) that will love them for themselves.
I hope everyone can learn that PUA is just an imperfect solution to a real problem, a problem that is not going away as men continue to be demonised to the point that only complete bastards can function properly (really ladies; the only people hurt by the campaigns to "improve" men are already good men. Bad people don't feel bad when you point out how shitty they are)
For all the gay men out there; "the Game" for men is easy mode.
Men are dawgs!
Try to feel some pity for your straight brothers!
Exploiting women for sex, teaching men to lie and manipulate to get what they want.
Sounds bad.
Some extreme ideologues want it categorised as rape (only when men do it, obviously, despite the protestations it would apply equally to all from law makers)
Now, I am not a PUA.
The very ideas behind the Game are against my personal philosophy.
I'd rather be lonely than have sex with a virtual stranger I need to lie to or manipulate.
That said, I will not judge other people for needing the crutch.
Because that is what it is, a crutch.
Not an evil and nefarious plan by men to rape unsuspecting willing women.
Many "beta nerds" (much like myself) are rather terrified by the prospect of dating and women in general.
This is not because they're stupid or unlikeable, it is because women hold all of the power and society is not afraid to shame men repeatedly since childhood to enforce a standard of behaviour.
We have a system whereby women will declare their independence and equality with one breath, but announce they still want a potential boyfriend to pay for everything when dating.
Simply put, the rules for modern courtship are a mess. We as men are told all sorts of things that we should and should not do. A lot of the "advice" contradicts itself.
Men's feelings on this are ignored or mocked, by men and women alike.
If you feel this way, you are defective. You are bad. You just need to be better.
PUA offers an alternative.
It tells vulnerable men exactly what to do to sleep with women and thereby have value as a man.
It does not shy away from truths, it does not attempt to make things equitable.
Most of the men that seek to learn "the game" do not WANT casual and meaningless sex, as strange as that sounds. It might be a bonus, but that's not what they are there for.
What they want is a way to meet women where they feel equal, where they feel capable, where they have some control.
I'd also suggest men want to feel desired, PUA offers this.
Now, some of this is exploitation of men's self consciousness.
Vulnerable men are taught to exploit women and derive self worth from this.
I'd suggest if you look deeper this is almost never the case.
When you get past the bravado, this is simply men boosting the confidence of other men. To make money or to do "good" is irrelevant. It's no different than makeup tutorials or fashion advice. It's no different than the plot of an enormous amount of romcoms. It is not dangerous or evil.
I'm sure a direct comparison between "the Game" and women's/teen magazines would show one is MUCH worse for dehumanising a gender and teaching to manipulate and lie, and that is the socially acceptable one.
While I dislike PUA as a lifestyle choice, it is not mine nor anyone else's place to judge.
I will extend my empathy to those men that feel they have no other choice, and hope it leads them to happiness and a woman (or women, I'm no tradcon) that will love them for themselves.
I hope everyone can learn that PUA is just an imperfect solution to a real problem, a problem that is not going away as men continue to be demonised to the point that only complete bastards can function properly (really ladies; the only people hurt by the campaigns to "improve" men are already good men. Bad people don't feel bad when you point out how shitty they are)
For all the gay men out there; "the Game" for men is easy mode.
Men are dawgs!
Try to feel some pity for your straight brothers!
Monday, 11 May 2015
The personal is political.
This concept gets a lot of hate for very valid reasons I agree with.
Too often it is used to inject politics into EVERYTHING and to analyse everything through a personal political lens.
I genuinely believe this is n unfortunate inevitability of both the phrase and those that inspired it.
It is a complex and ambiguous term that has developed multiple meanings as it grew out of the insanity of feminist ideology (sorry feminists, I know there are good ones, but as a whole the movement is schizophrenic)
On one hand it declares that private matters, personal circumstances and experiences inform a person's politics.
I think this is irrefutable.
My politics was most influenced by my father. I'm a working class kid from a council estate. The political is VERY personal to me. Politics has had a huge impact on me, from education reforms throughout my childhood disrupting the quality of education to various changes to welfare and employment policy. (Welfare changes effect everyone; for example, the reduction of state housing & privatisation of low income housing has had a MASSIVE impact on things like house and rental/mortgage prices)
The other is more problematic as it seems to blame all personal troubles on politics, or find faults with everything (from political positions to the shirt some guy wears) by complaining about the ill effects to some imagined individual.
Not explaining how politics can and does effect you personally.
Not how your experiences inform your politics
Instead; how a political ideology should drive everything about you and dictate how you behave and what you consume.
It suggests that everything about a person, all people, should be defined by politics, by their ideology.
This is the side we see most often, inconsistent and hypocritical though it is.
It also goes a step further and declares that the identity of a speaker should confer authority on what they say.
I hope the difference is clear, so that the inordinate amount of chaff can be sorted from the grain ro two of wheat.
I do, however, often have arguments with people over the core assertion of the principle.
EVERYTHING is political.
Everything you do, every experience you've had and everything you consume is driven by politics.
Imagine something completely unrelated to politics.
A book.
Cant possibly be politics (ignoring the specific content)
But politics dictates;
So, even the creation and reproduction of a book, something deeply personal and individual is political. Even an author working entirely alone is reliant on the vast network of society to accomplish anything, and society is simply the application of politics.
Note how none of this, zero, has dictated what political affiliation must be held.
The nearest to political interference at all is whether it can be published. Under some political authority there is tight control (mass censorship) and this is bad.
Personally, I think there should be almost no limit to what is allowable. Perhaps banning manuals on bomb making or similar? (though libel and instigation of violence should be prevented in print media)
Unfortunately "the personal is political" is often invoked to incense demographics to demand their personal political agenda should be enforced.
We see people asked to view everything through the lens of their chosen ideology, to find fault with everything and complain about those faults.
This to me is a breakdown in the political process, and an effort to divide people.
When we can see how politics effects us, how as individuals our own politics is formed and can empathise with these things in others from different circumstances, hopefully we can be more constructive.
We just need to abandon the notion that any ideology should drive a person at all times, or that a given identity automatically confers authority.
It's simply not possible and takes extraordinary cognitive dissonance to maintain such a standard, as reflected by the inconsistency and hypocrisy of those declaring the personal is political.
Too often it is used to inject politics into EVERYTHING and to analyse everything through a personal political lens.
I genuinely believe this is n unfortunate inevitability of both the phrase and those that inspired it.
It is a complex and ambiguous term that has developed multiple meanings as it grew out of the insanity of feminist ideology (sorry feminists, I know there are good ones, but as a whole the movement is schizophrenic)
On one hand it declares that private matters, personal circumstances and experiences inform a person's politics.
I think this is irrefutable.
My politics was most influenced by my father. I'm a working class kid from a council estate. The political is VERY personal to me. Politics has had a huge impact on me, from education reforms throughout my childhood disrupting the quality of education to various changes to welfare and employment policy. (Welfare changes effect everyone; for example, the reduction of state housing & privatisation of low income housing has had a MASSIVE impact on things like house and rental/mortgage prices)
The other is more problematic as it seems to blame all personal troubles on politics, or find faults with everything (from political positions to the shirt some guy wears) by complaining about the ill effects to some imagined individual.
Not explaining how politics can and does effect you personally.
Not how your experiences inform your politics
Instead; how a political ideology should drive everything about you and dictate how you behave and what you consume.
It suggests that everything about a person, all people, should be defined by politics, by their ideology.
This is the side we see most often, inconsistent and hypocritical though it is.
It also goes a step further and declares that the identity of a speaker should confer authority on what they say.
I hope the difference is clear, so that the inordinate amount of chaff can be sorted from the grain ro two of wheat.
I do, however, often have arguments with people over the core assertion of the principle.
EVERYTHING is political.
Everything you do, every experience you've had and everything you consume is driven by politics.
Imagine something completely unrelated to politics.
A book.
Cant possibly be politics (ignoring the specific content)
But politics dictates;
- If it can be published at all
- How it is categorised
- It's value in the market
- Tax paid on it
- The legal obligations of the publisher, retailer and consumer, as well as their rights
- The manufacturing of the book
- The circulation of that book (it didn't just materialise on your desk, it got there on public roads)
- The ability to read what is written (education is deeply political, and without the politics that drove universal education the market for written media would be MUCH smaller, that market would shrink and less books would be written, or at least published)
So, even the creation and reproduction of a book, something deeply personal and individual is political. Even an author working entirely alone is reliant on the vast network of society to accomplish anything, and society is simply the application of politics.
Note how none of this, zero, has dictated what political affiliation must be held.
The nearest to political interference at all is whether it can be published. Under some political authority there is tight control (mass censorship) and this is bad.
Personally, I think there should be almost no limit to what is allowable. Perhaps banning manuals on bomb making or similar? (though libel and instigation of violence should be prevented in print media)
Unfortunately "the personal is political" is often invoked to incense demographics to demand their personal political agenda should be enforced.
We see people asked to view everything through the lens of their chosen ideology, to find fault with everything and complain about those faults.
This to me is a breakdown in the political process, and an effort to divide people.
When we can see how politics effects us, how as individuals our own politics is formed and can empathise with these things in others from different circumstances, hopefully we can be more constructive.
We just need to abandon the notion that any ideology should drive a person at all times, or that a given identity automatically confers authority.
It's simply not possible and takes extraordinary cognitive dissonance to maintain such a standard, as reflected by the inconsistency and hypocrisy of those declaring the personal is political.
Friday, 8 May 2015
On Male Privilege and Benevolent Sexism.
The subject of privilege is most usually invoked to shame and discredit a speaker with percieved privilege.
This is a disgusting misuse of the discussion over privilege and institutional discrimination.
It essentially renders identity as a game ("the progressive stack") where the "least privileged" person has the most power, wields the most authority and generally dictates to everyone else in a twisted mirror of the things they are supposed to oppose.
Today I will limit my comments to the concept of privilege in gender.
First, a concession; male privilege as feminists express it is true.
.....to a degree.
In most circumstances such privilege is simply limited to a VERY SMALL percentage of men.
Essentially, any time feminists talk about the advantages men enjoy, they are ALWAYS talking about the highest social status males.
A negligible percentage of the population.
The 1% of men.
Low status males are so disposable, so "objectified" that they may as well not exist.
That is sad.
Conversely female privilege is SO universal amongst women that they cant seem to understand it as privilege, and instead render it as "benevolent sexism" or similar.
When women enjoy societal protection, receive more help and are taken more seriously as victims of every crime, this is just more evidence of misogyny.
When women enjoy advantages at every stage of criminal and civil law, it is somehow evidence that men are more criminal.
The equality movement openly and explicitly advocates that laws be less applicable to women, while also suggesting that preferential treatment of women proves societal misogyny.
The hypocrisy, cognitive dissonance and outright misanthropy on display even from self described moderate feminists often leaves me speechless.
However, I do concede that part of this difference in attitude is inherent in us as a dimorphic species. Women have inherent value because of pregnancy.
They are the sexual selectors and have the sexual power.
But "natural" doesn't mean "right" or "not important"
I don't think parity should be enforced, but I would personally appreciate if feminists could at least acknowledge reality once in a while.
(some do. But as I'm wont to say; you can be a feminist and an egalitarian, but it's not a requirement)
Privilege and discrimination are both very complicated issues.
The muddy waters of identity politics ensure that mature discussions on these subjects are impossible.
Know that when I declare identity politics to blame, I am not pointing to camp Liberal.
Both sides do this.
Modern progressives have adopted "social justice" in some of it's worst iterations, absolutely.
This does not absolve the modern right wing of constant racism, hypocrisy and support for fundamentalism.
Guess what right leaning guys?
You need to be JUST as embarrassed that "Obama birthers" happened as Liberals should be of race baiters like Al Sharpton (I'd say more; Sharpton at least has legitimate REASON to be committed to his work, misguided though he might be. Anyone gonna say that he grew up in a totally fair, none racist America?)
What I continually see from both sides of identity politics obsessed nutjobs is that it's the OTHER SIDE and only the other side that does it.
No. Rolled up newspaper to the nose of anyone that thinks this!
Liberals don't get a free pass because they have a black friend, Conservatives don't get a free pass because "Lincoln freed the slaves" or they don't use the southern strategy any more.
This is a disgusting misuse of the discussion over privilege and institutional discrimination.
It essentially renders identity as a game ("the progressive stack") where the "least privileged" person has the most power, wields the most authority and generally dictates to everyone else in a twisted mirror of the things they are supposed to oppose.
Today I will limit my comments to the concept of privilege in gender.
First, a concession; male privilege as feminists express it is true.
.....to a degree.
In most circumstances such privilege is simply limited to a VERY SMALL percentage of men.
Essentially, any time feminists talk about the advantages men enjoy, they are ALWAYS talking about the highest social status males.
A negligible percentage of the population.
The 1% of men.
Low status males are so disposable, so "objectified" that they may as well not exist.
That is sad.
Conversely female privilege is SO universal amongst women that they cant seem to understand it as privilege, and instead render it as "benevolent sexism" or similar.
When women enjoy societal protection, receive more help and are taken more seriously as victims of every crime, this is just more evidence of misogyny.
When women enjoy advantages at every stage of criminal and civil law, it is somehow evidence that men are more criminal.
The equality movement openly and explicitly advocates that laws be less applicable to women, while also suggesting that preferential treatment of women proves societal misogyny.
The hypocrisy, cognitive dissonance and outright misanthropy on display even from self described moderate feminists often leaves me speechless.
However, I do concede that part of this difference in attitude is inherent in us as a dimorphic species. Women have inherent value because of pregnancy.
They are the sexual selectors and have the sexual power.
But "natural" doesn't mean "right" or "not important"
I don't think parity should be enforced, but I would personally appreciate if feminists could at least acknowledge reality once in a while.
(some do. But as I'm wont to say; you can be a feminist and an egalitarian, but it's not a requirement)
Privilege and discrimination are both very complicated issues.
The muddy waters of identity politics ensure that mature discussions on these subjects are impossible.
Know that when I declare identity politics to blame, I am not pointing to camp Liberal.
Both sides do this.
Modern progressives have adopted "social justice" in some of it's worst iterations, absolutely.
This does not absolve the modern right wing of constant racism, hypocrisy and support for fundamentalism.
Guess what right leaning guys?
You need to be JUST as embarrassed that "Obama birthers" happened as Liberals should be of race baiters like Al Sharpton (I'd say more; Sharpton at least has legitimate REASON to be committed to his work, misguided though he might be. Anyone gonna say that he grew up in a totally fair, none racist America?)
What I continually see from both sides of identity politics obsessed nutjobs is that it's the OTHER SIDE and only the other side that does it.
No. Rolled up newspaper to the nose of anyone that thinks this!
Liberals don't get a free pass because they have a black friend, Conservatives don't get a free pass because "Lincoln freed the slaves" or they don't use the southern strategy any more.
Tuesday, 28 April 2015
Thoughts on Men's Rights
As a sister piece to my thoughts on feminism, I thought I'd include this.
Know that I am far more sympathetic to the MRM, not least because individual MRAs have been kind, considerate and inclusive towards me even when I am disagreeable or argumentative. This goes for commenters as well as content makers.
I first discovered the MRM through Karen Straughan. A redoubtable lady that represents men's rights as well as anyone might.
As many MRAs will concede, discussing men's issues is simply easier to accept from women, and the women in the MRM often serve as an introduction to men worried about misogyny.
Much of what she introduced me to made sense, were things I had observed and already new. I just had yet to place them in a wider context.
I'd also invite anyone reading this to the Honey Badgers. To suggest these are a diverse bunch is an understatement, which brings me to my first point.
MRAs are reactionary tradcons;
As a socialist I can confirm that many within the MRM are right leaning, most being libertarian. Tradcons are a tiny minority, and often criticised.
I often argue politics with MRAs, but I argue politics with everyone so that's nothing new.
I will concede my frustration that many repeat very silly borderline propagandist right wing tripe, don't know what ANY left wing movement is and are very quick to dismiss "the left"
What I'd add is that this is almost always from comments, not from content makers.
While many are still definitely right leaning and critical of the left, most keep politics separate from men's rights and actively encourage the inclusion of *everyone* regardless of affiliation.
My interactions with many content makers have been enlightening, friendly and inclusive, even when arguing politics. Even my comment wars *always* include reasonable folks and some fellow lefties.
The most "extreme" people involved in men's rights would be MGTOW, and even there I will be engaged with. If you can tolerate the vitriol and focus on issues, you'll see many are far more reasonable than they'll appear at first glance.
MGTOW proves MRAs hate women;
They are two different things. One person can be both, but they are not the same.
MGTOW stands for Men Going Their Own Way.
Most are motivated not by hatred of women, but by frustration with their lives and society. They don't want to hurt anyone, they just want to disengage and do their own thing. It's Ghandi level protest, they have nothing to fight with accept their refusal to participate.
Now, I read a LOT of hateful shit from MGTOW, and it definitely disgusts me, but MGTOW itself is absolutely great. If you look up prominent MGTOW, you'll find a bunch of great people (even if I disagree with some of their politics more than I could possibly express :P)
Here are some I find entertaining and/or insightful.
Stardusk - don't always agree with the man, but he represents MGTOW very well.
Barbarosa - Ditto :P (lots of thoughts on theory. Very interesting)
JohntheOther - lately seems to be focusing WAY too much on bitching about MRAs, but at his best he's exceptional. I'd consider him a MGTOW, not sure if he'd label himself so.
MRAs definitely include some MGTOW, but many of the latter simply want to walk away from the discussion entirely.
Men's rights are misogyny;
How this is even a thing I do not know.
How can including or caring about men hurt women?
Now, you WILL absolutely find misogyny in the manosphere, even on the best MRM channels.
I'd add that such behaviour is condemned, but only censored when extreme. These are places for honest expression, including offensive stuff. I'd also hazard an assertion that many men discovering the MRM are damaged and were only able to confront societal problems men face through personal experience. Not an excuse, but an explanation.
I'd also point out that such rhetoric is not widely endorsed, and that the MRM is small and essentially powerless. The attempts to discredit it come from a movement with FAR more overt problems with sexism and actual violence, and where radical voices exercise considerable influence.
Feminists have to be against Men's Rights;
Absolutely wrong.
I am an avowed antifeminist, but there are *plenty* of feminists that are also MRAs.
Now, most will abandon the term in favour of egalitarian after facing a backlash and seeing the hypocrisy, but they're still supportive of women (much like me :P)
Christina Hoff Sommers is definitely an MRA. She advocates for men and boys and has done so for DECADES.
Warren Farrell still describes himself as a feminist, and much like Sommers has been doing this for decades. He may also be the nicest and most softly spoken man on the planet, I have no idea how he came to be so vilified by feminists.
I'll end by saying the MRM is not perfect.
I dislike libertarianism (especially the right leaning brand) and that is the popular politics within Men's rights. Part of this is because the left is so dominated by feminism that men rights are discredited; only right leaning media will touch it.
There is also a penchant for women to become "the problem" in a mirror to my criticisms of feminism and patriarchy. Even MRAs I like very much do this, and it is VERY important to keep dialogue open, share these ideas and see them quickly die with scrutiny.
This was most apparent with "hypergamy"
Plenty of merit in it (just like patriarchy theory has SOME merit. Lots of men are in power)A lot of sense gets talked, but it becomes too easy to generalise women or about how women are all a problem.
I'll hope that many people unaware of the MRM will give it a chance, get involved and support men.
When men's rights become a mainstream, acceptable issue, the political diversity will ensure a moderation of the movement. I hope.
Know that I am far more sympathetic to the MRM, not least because individual MRAs have been kind, considerate and inclusive towards me even when I am disagreeable or argumentative. This goes for commenters as well as content makers.
I first discovered the MRM through Karen Straughan. A redoubtable lady that represents men's rights as well as anyone might.
As many MRAs will concede, discussing men's issues is simply easier to accept from women, and the women in the MRM often serve as an introduction to men worried about misogyny.
Much of what she introduced me to made sense, were things I had observed and already new. I just had yet to place them in a wider context.
I'd also invite anyone reading this to the Honey Badgers. To suggest these are a diverse bunch is an understatement, which brings me to my first point.
MRAs are reactionary tradcons;
As a socialist I can confirm that many within the MRM are right leaning, most being libertarian. Tradcons are a tiny minority, and often criticised.
I often argue politics with MRAs, but I argue politics with everyone so that's nothing new.
I will concede my frustration that many repeat very silly borderline propagandist right wing tripe, don't know what ANY left wing movement is and are very quick to dismiss "the left"
What I'd add is that this is almost always from comments, not from content makers.
While many are still definitely right leaning and critical of the left, most keep politics separate from men's rights and actively encourage the inclusion of *everyone* regardless of affiliation.
My interactions with many content makers have been enlightening, friendly and inclusive, even when arguing politics. Even my comment wars *always* include reasonable folks and some fellow lefties.
The most "extreme" people involved in men's rights would be MGTOW, and even there I will be engaged with. If you can tolerate the vitriol and focus on issues, you'll see many are far more reasonable than they'll appear at first glance.
MGTOW proves MRAs hate women;
They are two different things. One person can be both, but they are not the same.
MGTOW stands for Men Going Their Own Way.
Most are motivated not by hatred of women, but by frustration with their lives and society. They don't want to hurt anyone, they just want to disengage and do their own thing. It's Ghandi level protest, they have nothing to fight with accept their refusal to participate.
Now, I read a LOT of hateful shit from MGTOW, and it definitely disgusts me, but MGTOW itself is absolutely great. If you look up prominent MGTOW, you'll find a bunch of great people (even if I disagree with some of their politics more than I could possibly express :P)
Here are some I find entertaining and/or insightful.
Stardusk - don't always agree with the man, but he represents MGTOW very well.
Barbarosa - Ditto :P (lots of thoughts on theory. Very interesting)
JohntheOther - lately seems to be focusing WAY too much on bitching about MRAs, but at his best he's exceptional. I'd consider him a MGTOW, not sure if he'd label himself so.
MRAs definitely include some MGTOW, but many of the latter simply want to walk away from the discussion entirely.
Men's rights are misogyny;
How this is even a thing I do not know.
How can including or caring about men hurt women?
Now, you WILL absolutely find misogyny in the manosphere, even on the best MRM channels.
I'd add that such behaviour is condemned, but only censored when extreme. These are places for honest expression, including offensive stuff. I'd also hazard an assertion that many men discovering the MRM are damaged and were only able to confront societal problems men face through personal experience. Not an excuse, but an explanation.
I'd also point out that such rhetoric is not widely endorsed, and that the MRM is small and essentially powerless. The attempts to discredit it come from a movement with FAR more overt problems with sexism and actual violence, and where radical voices exercise considerable influence.
Feminists have to be against Men's Rights;
Absolutely wrong.
I am an avowed antifeminist, but there are *plenty* of feminists that are also MRAs.
Now, most will abandon the term in favour of egalitarian after facing a backlash and seeing the hypocrisy, but they're still supportive of women (much like me :P)
Christina Hoff Sommers is definitely an MRA. She advocates for men and boys and has done so for DECADES.
Warren Farrell still describes himself as a feminist, and much like Sommers has been doing this for decades. He may also be the nicest and most softly spoken man on the planet, I have no idea how he came to be so vilified by feminists.
I'll end by saying the MRM is not perfect.
I dislike libertarianism (especially the right leaning brand) and that is the popular politics within Men's rights. Part of this is because the left is so dominated by feminism that men rights are discredited; only right leaning media will touch it.
There is also a penchant for women to become "the problem" in a mirror to my criticisms of feminism and patriarchy. Even MRAs I like very much do this, and it is VERY important to keep dialogue open, share these ideas and see them quickly die with scrutiny.
This was most apparent with "hypergamy"
Plenty of merit in it (just like patriarchy theory has SOME merit. Lots of men are in power)A lot of sense gets talked, but it becomes too easy to generalise women or about how women are all a problem.
I'll hope that many people unaware of the MRM will give it a chance, get involved and support men.
When men's rights become a mainstream, acceptable issue, the political diversity will ensure a moderation of the movement. I hope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)