(December 28, 2017 at 1:41 am)Shell B Wrote: When I refer to MRAs, I’m referring to men’s rights activists, not just the most loathed faces. When you say there are good groups of men who are fighting for their rights, you’re talking about the same people I am. I’m not just talking about a group of assholes on Reddit.

Tiz, the only groups I have been calling fringe are hostile feminazis, though I’ve also used the term more abstractly.

Then the group your  talking about is not the MRA . Because as a movement they are lead by assholes like Paul Elms and last i   checked he's not just some guy on reddit. But an internationally recognized  leader of the movement . So much so he was a key note speaker at the " International men's issue conference" along with other destable but highly respected leaders  and  top groups within the movement . As for who i am talking about (The good Men project ) are a feminist allied human rights group that totally rejects the term MRA. Which has earned them ire from the MRA leaders . Who call them cucks or white knights. As for only using fringe when referring a "feminazi's " are you saying the assholes are the mainstream ? If so then i totally agree they are the movements mainstream .

---

There is a good reason very few outside the MRA support MRA . Because once you dig into it's culture and leadership . You realize how toxic a movement it is.

Id like to know more about these "feminazis" I keep hearing about. Is there a forum or online community where they all gather and talk about how all men are evil and rapists and all that? Or is it really just based on select quotes said by some prominent feminists taken out of context?

Thumpalumpacus Wrote:. It seems to me that MRAs tend to be farther right than the broad swathe of feminists are to the left.

This is actually wrong, they did a survey on reddit or something and the result they got was feminists are most likely leaning left but mras were a much!much more diverse group.
That aside, I'm not sure how women in US got their rights, somebody said they were discouraged in young age like "don't bother doing studies you'll just end up in the kitchen" or something like that, I have actually heard that being said as well but it was because the economy is really tight so the competition is very high and most likely people don't get anywhere even if they are highly qualified...not because men wanted to restraint them to the house.. just yesterday I came to know a young guy that was admitted in the psych ward, according to his mom the guy was really smart and everything (he scored 78% for his mtech, and got into the rank list of another exam he attended after his mtech) but the guy couldn't get a job, obviously anybody can get a job but a guy that has worked so hard will have some expectations and he couldn't get any good job, the poor guy went down a spiral and got depressed and stuff so he's in treatment now. So my point is "don't bother you'll just end up in the house" could have been said because of economic pressure and competition, back then every country was going through tough times so it makes sense, I'm just skeptical that happened because patriarchy, it's most probably more complicated than that.

Grandizer Wrote:Or is it really just based on select quotes said by some prominent feminists taken out of context?

Just Google for awful things feminists have said and you'll get tons...and tons.. You'll get awful things said by mras as well probably but I haven't looked for it, like for example Hillary Clinton has said something along the lines of "women are the real victims of war they lose their husbands, sons etc" a mra guy wrote a response to that like "men are the real victims of rape, their wife, sisters and mothers are hurt" lol

(December 28, 2017 at 7:07 am)pool the matey Wrote:

Grandizer Wrote:Or is it really just based on select quotes said by some prominent feminists taken out of context?

Just Google for awful things feminists have said and you'll get tons...and tons..

Out of context, you mean? Yeah, I'm very well aware that anti-feminists have come up with huge lists of out-of-context quotes, but I care a lot about context as well.

Quote:like for example Hillary Clinton has said something along the lines of "women are the real victims of war they lose their husbands, sons etc" a mra guy wrote a response to that like "men are the real victims of rape, their wife, sisters and mothers are hurt" lol

Suppose that she meant exactly what you think she meant, how does this make her a "feminazi" worthy of disdain because of such a quote? Bernie Sanders made a few social faux pas himself, such as saying that white people don't know what it's like to be poor compared (to black people), but we understand what he was trying to say, so we don't give him much shit for that. Yet, with Hillary, it's like any slip up she makes, we have to condemn her to hell for it. Hell, even without looking at the context, I know what she is trying to say in that "quote/misquote", and it's not something "feminazi" bad.

---

Looking online for the context to this quote you ascribe to Hillary, are you referring to this speech?

http://time.com/4721094/hillary-clinton-...ranscript/

If so, where does it say what you say she said?

---

Ok, I think I got it:

https://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-victims-of-war/

Yes, she did say what you said she said, but I would still encourage reading it within context nevertheless. And I go back to my original overall question. Who and where are these "feminazis"?

Actually Hillary has a point considering this quote was being made at a meeting about sexual violence . In the context of unarmed civilians being raped and murdered and having to make do without the support of their sons or husbands who in a great many countries still are the primary breadwinners she is correct . As the article Grand links points out .

Quote:a  adopted by the United Nation Security Council in 2000 arrived at a similar conclusion, stating that “civilians, particularly women and children, account for the vast majority of those adversely affected by armed conflict.

And again by the UN security council 

Quote:C]ivilians account for the vast majority of those adversely affected by armed conflict; women and girls are particularly targeted by the use of sexual violence, including as a tactic of war to humiliate, dominate, instill fear in, disperse and/or forcibly relocate civilian members of a community or ethnic group; and sexual violence perpetrated in this manner may in some instances persist after the cessation of hostilitie

I point out Feminism could greatly help these women . If they could be empowered many of these ails could be eased .



As for evil shit MRA's have said .How about Paul Elms saying if he were on a jury to a rape case he would aquite  the man regardless of the evidence. Because it would anger feminists .  Or how about the rape accuse a thon . How about Sargon Of Akkad saying to a British female PM that he would not even rape her. Or how just about  anything that comes out of Stefan Molyneux mouth . I could go on and on .

(December 27, 2017 at 9:01 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: If that is her stance i agree. If you found  Redpill in anyway impressive .

I'm not sure what you mean by impressive. What I think is exactly what I said in the OP: it raised some valid points I had not previously considered.

Among those are men getting screwed in child custody courts, getting more prison time and more death penalties for the same crimes, being more likely to be wrongfully convicted of a crime, not having much funding/awareness for prostate cancer, etc. Those are issues worth talking about, and I'm not sure why anyone would disagree with that.

If you're going to say anything negative by a feminist is taken out of context, an honest conversation about this isn't possible. If you're going to say every single MRA is a monster, an honest conversation isn't possible.

So, if you haven't seen the movie mentioned in the OP, this video might fill you in on where the documentarian is coming from. A little bit chicken little, but she made a couple valid points. I don't see why changing her mind about MRAs caused her to renounce feminism though. Assuming that every single point made by the MRAs was correct, that's no reason to conclude that women have nothing to fight for in society. Her characterization of MRAs was as a movement not opposed to feminism. However, the result of MRAs gaining her sympathies was for her to discontinue her feminist activism. Odd...







What I see as compelling is what she had to say about "dehumanizing the enemy." I used to see conservatives as a collective of idiots. In my hometown (in rural Appalachia) there are a great deal of conservatives who are so set in their way of thinking, it would be beyond them to even consider a leftist position. When I would debate politics with them, I would always "tow the line." When they would mention public waste I would retort, "But there is corporate waste, too." What ever point they had to make, I made a counterpoint.

But around two years ago, I started taking a different approach. I would acknowledge that things like public waste were bad instead of just immediatly comparing it to corporate waste. And the weird thing is, once they felt they  were being heard, they were more receptive to my points. Just by admitting they had a point about public waste (and they did) I was able to proceed in our discourse as someone who can find common ground them. Sometimes people just want to be heard. There's nothing wrong with that.

I should probably admit I'm a total hippie/peacenik, and I really get off on that kumbaya shit. So what I'm saying here may have more to do with respecting different points of view than feminism. Tizheruk said something about half of MRAs being addicted to their own anger, while the other half were crypto-antifeminists. Perhaps some are. But let's assume that a significant portion become activists taking the platform at face value. If we allow that MRAs have some valid points, it seems to be trivializing the anger of some because others in the movement have dubious intentions. The right does the same thing, trivializes the anger of BLM and feminists. Bad practice I think. Leads to less listening.

But then again, Thumpalumpacus had a good point:

(December 28, 2017 at 12:37 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: That doesn't, however, mean that every cause is equal. Given the length and breadth of male social dominance, there seems to be a big mote/beam factor not being considered by MRA groups.

A simple stroll through the history books proves that women were utterly disenfranchised since the birth of civilized society. It isn't a simple issue of changing a few laws to set it right; it is unearthing prejudices embedded deep within our culture.

But, just like feminists, some MRAs appear to be motivated to unwind the cultural fabric of traditional gender roles, so there is common ground between the two movements.

I'm going to double down on what I said before: any group ought to be able to advocate for the rights of its members. I think the real issue isn't MRAs, but antifeminism. If men want to fight societal norms that do not work in their favor, this should have no bearing on women trying to do the same. If you are a men's rights activist fighting for something like equal consideration in custody battles, they need not oppose women seeking equality in the professional arena etc.

Inasmuch as MRAs are advocating for the advancement of justice in arenas where it is lacking for men, I take no issue with it. If a movement feels the need to oppose the activism of marginalized people (feminists in this case), then they are just standing in the way of progress.

(December 28, 2017 at 10:28 am)Shell B Wrote: If you're going to say anything negative by a feminist is taken out of context, an honest conversation about this isn't possible. If you're going to say every single MRA is a monster, an honest conversation isn't possible.

All you have to do is point me to a group online where those feminists youre talking about tend to post in. What Im really after is evidence that there is such a group that we can rightly call what you call them. Otherwise, if were just going by quotes, then it would be very honest to want to make sure theyre not misquotes and such.

(December 28, 2017 at 10:28 am)Shell B Wrote: If you're going to say anything negative by a feminist is taken out of context, an honest conversation about this isn't possible. If you're going to say every single MRA is a monster, an honest conversation isn't possible.

^^^