“Not all MRAs!”
I think the point Little Nemo was making was that that illogical combination of attitudes is noticeably prominent in the MRM. Not that “everyone” who holds the former position necessarily holds the latter as well.
Yes, there are some MRAs who I’m not sure actually disagree with feminists all that much. Their analyses and deconstructions of traditional gender roles can be on target, and oftentimes are the exact things many feminists believe. Though there are obviously rhetorical differences in many cases (for one – eschewing patriarchy theory, even when what they’re describing is more or less the same thing).
They’re still not the majority (or at least not the most visible members), and even the good/smart ones tend to be wrapped up in beating on straw feminists or cherry picking targets despite their insight.
Seeing women exclusively as potential sexual conquests is so far removed from liking them, it’s just not funny. Hell yes, he was a misogynist.
Read his manifesto. He straight-up hated them. And said so. In many, many words:
“I cannot kill every single female on earth, but I can deliver a devastating blow that will shake all of them to the core of their wicked hearts.”
“Females truly have something mentally wrong with them,”
“They think like beasts, and in truth, they are beasts. Women are incapable of having morals or thinking rationally”
“Women are like a plague. They don’t deserve to have any rights … women are vicious, evil, barbaric animals, and they need to be treated as such”
You can’t seriously posit that he didn’t hate women. That would be so moronic I doubt you’d ever be able to live it down.
ETA: I see you’ve retracted. Good for you, seriously.
Sure, he hated women; but he apparently hated everybody, right down to his own brother. He was an extreme misanthropist, not solely a misogynist. He hated everyone but himself; so of course he hated women, because they aren’t him.
He was both a misanthrope and a misogynist. The one is not a subset of the other, and being the former doesn’t mean you can’t be the latter. He had particular, exclusive opinions about women that were in addition to his hatred of people in general. So “misogynist” is an accurate, but not full, description of the little shit, and it is possible to have discussions focused on his misogyny without muddying the waters with everything else he hated…
I never claimed feminism did anything of the sort, while the poster I replied to did explicitly attribute this position to the men’s rights movement. It isn’t, in fact, caused by feminists, it is rather just one of those injustices that effects men and therefore attracts the interest of the MRM. Feminists talk a lot about the supposed pay gap, and in Norway have got a system of quotas in place the ensure a minimum number of women in their corporate boardrooms, and also BBC panel games must all now include at least one woman in every episode, and the Labour party changed the law to allow them to refuse to consider men in some constituencies as candidates, to inflate the number of female MPs. These are things feminists want, and want to use the power of the law, the government and the ruling party to do. I think the MRM issue, as one that effects far more people that policies about corporate boardrooms, TV personalities and policiticians, is more important. Feminists don’t.
The interests of children are best served by joint custody. I don’t think I’ve ever come across an MRA campaigning for our becoming cavemen. Certainly the mensrights reddit, the nearest thing to a popular MRM forum an probably the best place to gauge the consensus in the movement, is typified by the opposite position:
Again, on the subreddit which constitutes the most popular and useful MRM forum, that is decidedly the majority position. You probably shouldn’t be talking about straw feminists when your own interpretation of the MRM is little more than a derogatory fantasy.
The patriarchy theory is eschewed because it is based on the idea that men as a class benefit from the system of gender norms under which we suffer. The position of the MRM is that they are bad for all, and at least as bad for men as for women. Women have largely been freed from these repressive norms by feminism, and the MRM wants to do the same for men, that is all. Therefore calling the system “patriarchy” is going to go down about as well as going to the NAACP and referring to racist stereotypes as “the niggerarchy”.
Well, that seems sane and reasonable. I’m convinced.
:rolleyes:
And all it wants in return is sex and adoration. Or else bitches get shot. Is that so unreasonable?
I stand by all those positions. Housing left empty why homeless exist is iniquitous and should be prevented by the law. The American constitution is a wholly ineffective defence of liberty. Our current system of economic governance was predicted by Michael Young, and is characterised by a self-perpetuating elite pretending to moral superiority.
Do feel free to disagree with those positions. I stand by them all, crazy or not.
Dude, you’re a feminist.
Ick. Its like watching someone try to fit a scary clown mask over a Klan hood. It doesn’t fit, is intended to hide try real methods, and still comes off as creepy as hell.
Property is theft. The social is the political. Feminism is patriarchy.
Big is small. Up is down. The surface of the sun has a temperature of absolute zero.
I suppose that sort of insult is acceptable in the Pit. I’m an egalitarian, and hence not a feminist.
It is- you whiny, ignorant shit who isn’t a terrorist.
Feminism is not mutually exclusive with egalitarianism. You have utterly failed to show that any significant portion of feminists are opposed to equality.
Uh huh. Your feminist ID is in the mail. Welcome to the club.
Nixon once said that we are all Keynesians now (c. 1970) and he was right. Similarly I think we’re all feminists now: the big arguments were won long ago, though obviously perfect equality of opportunity is a receding horizon.
But there are militant feminists who are delusional, special pleaders or plain batshit crazy. No surprise there: all groups have such characters. But from, say, 1979-1993 those folks successfully acquired the media microphone, inflicting some damage to the feminist brand. They had the sort of disproportionate voice that climate science denialists have today. Too many men haven’t figured out that militant feminism peaked long ago and has precious little influence today (thanks partly to bubble busters such as Nadine Strossen).
Catherine MacKinnon is a decent example. Her practical influence spanned the 1983-1992 period and even then wasn’t exactly overwhelming, though she successfully curbed gay rights somewhat.
Camilia Paglia wrote that feminism took a nosedive when Kate Millett rose to prominence. Millet urged clemency for a Black male Trinidadian revolutionary who’d macheted and buried a young white woman for becoming a distraction to a fellow revolutionary (he hadn’t made a good job of the hacking: when the police dug her up they found dirt in her lungs). Millett also twisted the horrifying torture murder of [Sylvia Likens](Sylvia Likens) by another woman as just an extreme internalization of womens’ self-hate in a patriarchial society.
Which invalidates the progress of equality between the sexes not one whit. But when ideals are cherished in relation to actual people to such absurd levels, I reserve the right to call bullshit on the idealogues who are working those angles. Especially if they’re principles I believe in myself.