Internet Lunatics - RadFems, PUA's, MRA's, MGTOW's, etc.

A sex partner means that you are successful or have been successful in the past. You aren't a loser. You aren't taking part in something that millions of other people are doing everyday, or are bored of doing...

And of course there is pressure. You are only young once. Most people are only at college once when they are the same age as most of the students. And society, family members, and the guys themselves put pressure on you to get in a relationship.

What percentage of the population has been in a relationship? And both genders show off who they are dating. The only people who don't are single guys and gays. And if other people can't figure out a reason you haven't found a girl yet, then that leads to one inaccurate assumption frequently.

 

Sure. I get that, but the expectations behind what you are saying is a toxic mix of socialization and biology.

What would a world look like where not having a sex partner didn't lead someone to feel this way? What would we gain? What would we loose?

 

And now for a refreshing change Charlatan and I are on the same side. Whatever the rest of your ideology says I think we can all agree that it's absolutely toxic and devastating for our current social/gender norms to define a man's worth by a combination of material wealth, traditional good looks, and promiscuity. We're going to continue to see all kinds of fallout until young men start being taught that they're not defective, disgusting, or disposable. Self-worth can't come from other people.

I've actually read more of his material than I care to, he devotes enormous portions of it to ideas of racial purity and even rants about wanting to kill people for being better skateboarders than him. If he'd been charismatic enough and had enough self control to manipulate someone into a relationship he almost certainly would've just been an abuser and probably serial killer instead of a mass public shooter.

The author must not be viewing any other newsmedia because an overwhelming majority of coverage is pushing the misogyny angle so hard that many are even claiming he was a perfectly mentally healthy white man.

 

Somehow I doubt that sexual intercourse is a cure for being an entitled sociopath. I would bet that had this guy found someone to fuck, we wouldn't be hearing about him at all because dude would have ended up going to prison for killing his lover, and crazy assholes killing their lovers is something that rarely makes the national news.

 

If you want to do a mens group and have a # going on as a counterpoint,this is how to do it.

36 Men Show Us What Real Men's Activists Look Like - PolicyMic

 

So the right way to have a men's group is for men to completely ignore men's issues and instead hold signs about how bad men are and how badly men treat women, even (or especially?) if those signs are holding up claims that are patently false. Gotcha.

What saddens me is that I'm convinced you honestly do believe that, and genuinely can't see the problem with that line of thinking.

What saddens me more is that I'm not even surprised anymore when someone basically says "Men need to shut up about men's problems", or when it's almost always followed by the attempt to claim feminism is the answer and men should support feminism.

 

I was referring directly to Redravin's statement about how to properly "do a mens group".

Your language reveals the true problem here. Just look at your very first charge. "Anti-Feminist". Down to the very language itself you are utterly set in the belief that the very act of disagreeing with feminism inherently makes something wrong. That anything which opposes feminism, disagrees with feminism's claims, or simply isn't feminism is automatically, utterly, unequivocably, wrong. As long as you continue to believe that nothing I say will ever be enough for you.

That selection's discussion of the MRM is typical of feminist literature, specifically in that it is nothing more than a combination of witch-hunt accusations of misogyny and woman-hating interspersed with patently false claims about the movement designed to paint it in as bad a light as possible. If this is the sort of utterly dishonest garbage you're reading it's really no wonder you're so set against the MRM, particularly since you (and others) have so far utterly refused to seriously consider any ACTUAL material from the MRM itself. I wonder how quick you'd be to dismiss me outright if I constantly refused to ever read anything from feminism itself.

If you want to talk about the "bad parts" of a movement overshadowing the good parts, which is in and of itself incredibly hypocritical of you given how you previously argued against my evidence towards exactly that in feminism, look to your own house: Feminists have responded with so many violent death threats to an MRM conference in Detroit that the hotel is now going to require 24 hour security from an entire squadron of police officers.

There is a word for when a political group repeatedly and consistently employs threats, crime, and violence to affect politics and silence any who oppose them with fears of violence.

We call that terrorism.


The MRM on the other hand, thanks in part to its leading female members, raised a $4,000 bounty to bring someone who attacked a feminist to justice. Time and again feminists commit crimes and acts of violence, and time and again the MRM's stances are vindicated even by RAINN and NCHERM. How long will this pattern continue before you stop basing your judgment of the MRM entirely on the fact that it isn't feminism, and therefore must be in the wrong?

 

Oh Baraku, what are we going to do with you. You keep saying these things but then you constantly prove that they're not true every time you open your mouth. You're like someone that keeps insisting they're an M.D. with research expertise in immunology who constantly says that vaccines cause autism. An astronomer who claims the earth is flat. A geologist that claims the world is 6000 years old. A climatologist that says there's no such thing as global climate change.

If you actually DID have any familiarity with the MRM, beyond what feminist websites and authors constantly libel it with, you'd know just how many of your claims about the MRM are patently false.

1. Your position is predicated on a claim to moral superiority, hypocrisy is both directly relevant to that and a sidenote to the fact that if something is a legitimate criticism of the MRM it must be an equally legitimate criticism of feminism. Otherwise you are holding a double standard.

2. So when you do find outliers whilst excluding the fact those people are banned and shunned it's a sound argument against the MRM, but when I demonstrate a pattern of far more serious acts of crime and violence which are tacitly condoned you handwave it away with a No True Scotsman and "Feminism Is Not Monolith".

3. Your cry of hasty generalization is invalid as its usage is predicated on inherently invalid logic. Because of your use of "Feminism Is Not Monolith" and your judgment that being "anti-feminist" inherently makes something wrong no evidence will ever be considered sufficient for you, since you simply exclude any counter-evidence as invalid. As long as you take your position as axiomatically correct everything counter to it will always be "specious" or "lacking credence". Like Charlatan's slap in the face a page or so back where he said all it would take for him to "agree with me" is for me to completely concede on all my points and agree with him.

4. False Dilemma is what YOU are doing. Everything to you is either Feminism, or Evil. The mere act of being "Anti-Feminist" leads to being automatically considered wrong, because feminism is axiomatically taken as correct in all things by default. Asking that you NOT force a false dilemma of Feminist or Anti-feminist-therefore-wrong is not, itself, a false dilemma. Your cry that it is however is typical of the feminist tactic of moving the goalposts to create an extremified "with us or against us" dichotomy; much like the teabaggers who claim that not being allowed to force their way on others is "persecution".

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Fallacies are not magic. You cannot simply invoke them, and if you base them on an invalid premise they are themselves invalid.

 

I'd like to expand on something that @Baraka_Guru pointed out concerning your statistics for the deaths and suicides of men along with the lack of support for them.
I would argue that the problem is much more based in class politics than in gender.
Going all the way back to Dicken's England the idea of the man being turned out to suffer in the lowest of classes if they couldn't provide is common.
In the US during the Great Depression men would leave their families to go find work.
Compared to the hardships suffered by the men in the past, many of whom supported their wives in their efforts to gain the vote and be allowed to have access to birth control, the men's movement of today seems like a whiney bunch indeed.
The men in those days, like my grandfather, organized the IWW.
They worked hard to change the life of the men and women who counted.

 

@shadowex3, for the record, I did not say you had to agree with me, but if that makes you feel superior keep on keeping on.

 

Interesting article, may or may not be relevant to the thread, if not the current discussion:

A men's rights group tried and failed at stealthily holding a concert on the Toronto Islands | torontolife.com

 

An interesting opinion piece with a slightly different take on #YesAllMen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/02/opinion/blow-yes-all-men.html?smid=pl-share&_r=1

 

In the middle east there is a saying: "There will be peace when they love their children more than they hate us". The core of his conclusion is absolutely right, you can't have one party simply decide "Nope, this isn't working out for me, so we're going to be equals now". Both have to work for it.

But more than that, both have to work both ways.

Sympathising with someone's problems and trying to help is empathy.
Using one person's problems as a bludgeon to keep everyone else from dealing with or talking about theirs too... that's pushing past even antipathy.

MRA's who try to bring up circumcision in the west when the subject at hand is stopping FGM in the global south are part of the problem.
Feminists who completely ignore the ~80% of human trafficking that's men and boys for slave labor are part of the problem.
MRA's that care more about getting back at false accusers than fixing the cultural insanity around sexuality are part of the problem.

I took a few days off not just to come back and post when I'd slept more than a few hours in the last few days, but also because Baraku by pure accident of a typo had given me something I needed to mull over for a bit.

Can there ever be a feminist MRA? We know the answer to that is a resounding no. The core tenets of each are inherently contradictory.
Feminists believe in "Rape Culture". The MRM disputes that with evidence of the staggering drop in crime rates, overprosecution, unfalsifiability, and RAINN's statements
Feminists believe in "Patriarchy". The MRM believes it's about class rather than gender, and that traditional gender roles are equal opportunity oppressors.

But can they coexist? Even if their core ideologies are fundamentally opposed to one another can they peacefully coexist and work on their respective issues?
Until now the massive and entirely one-sided history of attacks against the MRM has been the start and end of that conversation. Until now. A few days ago for afaik the first time ever Nocturnus Libertus, a staunch radical anarchist/feminist, publically rebuked mainstream feminism for the threats and history of crime and violence against the MRM.

So maybe, just maybe, there's a chance.

There's more and more people seeing this stuff and responding like this commentor from Charlatan's article: