Are MRAs always angry?

Post Reply New Topic

currently on twitter feminists are using the #killallmen hashtag advocating, murdering, genocide and enslavement of men. how comes feminists aren't protesting against that.

Like this one, you mean https://twitter.com/jaythenerdkid/statu ... 64/photo/1 ?

so a post of a pervert justify postings calling for my murder and enslavement?








[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZcTG2yFcBE[/youtube]

#killallsephardic_male? Didn't see that.

Fixed the encoding wont work anymore with the s in the http every time ya put the url take the s off the https for it to work.

Here's my problem with all this though. I get that you guys are trying to get some sort of argument about hypocrisy going but are any of you actually offended by any of this? I am male and I don't find it offensive. I see it as hyperbole and I'm able to laugh at it. I'm not fearing for my life nor are my feelings hurt.

Honestly, are any of you truly offended by this.

This might [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tQSOlF9ZZM[/youtube]

Yes, that was offensive, AspieOtaku.

Did a quick search. Seems like a radical fringe group. Pretty sickening actually.

Edit: Seems like it may be a parody or satire or some sort of outlandish statement. I still find it rather sickening though even if it is meant to be a parody.

The extreme feminist groups, advocating misandry, especially female supremacy, violent action, sabotage groups, or any group that has the equivalent attitude to MRA, I have a very low opinion of, and frankly so should everyone.

Most of those groups went out in in the 90s, at least the main organized ones, there was a problem with them in the 80s and I think this set back progress of Women rights. A lot of their most serious effects were actually on women an their families, as they advocating breaking up families and joining of communes, in some case they didn't see their children. There was also an element of pushing on women in these groups, one sexuality and confusing this with being feminist.

However this really isn't women liberation. Most likely it is reaction to something in their life, and they turn against all men. There is no excuses for it though.

Any group that think that becuase A is sometimes B, then X is always caused by A, they need basic critical thinking help.

Any group that focuses on semantics, rather the main issues facing women I don't agree with their strategy. I also object to those that wish to sensor parody or satire, on the basis that it may contain sexist content.

Personally the #killallmen has tag is bellow the belt, becuase it is not clear satire/parody, and it equivalent to MRA. The Society of Cutting up Men video, has a pretext, which was a the woman who shot Andy Warhol, who wrote a rambling manifesto of the same name, she had some serious mental issues, most likely paranoid delusions. That is satire, but I can understand if people might be confused but it. It is not actually advocating cutting up men, it is bringing to attention the stupidity of such views. It is a controversial video, however.

You are not playing a card, you are living the victim mentality, you are moaning about all sort of random stuff which isn't any more related to women than it is to men. You are focused on tit for tat. You resent progress for women in general, becuase of either really or imagined specific issues that men have. Rather than working toward an egalitarian attitude for everyone inline with mainstream rights groups, you see one movement as a direct threat to you becuase frankly you resent their progress. However you are more likely to have success if you actual campaign on men issues, rather than equating campaigning on men's issue with needing to push back on feminism.

Ironically you need to man up.



It suits it just fine why wouldn't it? Basically what you are saying, that in order to be a women or feminist, you have to be perfect. Or men don't have to stick to stereotypes but women do.



Touche. You think that changing diaper, or learning to sew make you special? Please. More and more women are doing 'male' skills. If you have such a low opinion of women that only servers to undermine your position.

just for the sake of curiosity: what exactly are "male skills"? --do you mean things like standing up to take a piss, is that a male skill? if so then you're right, very few girls tackle that one.

starvingartist you can with FUDs.

Driving a stick shift and forgetting to put the toilet seat down and being lazy and thinking about sex a lot. Playing football hockey lifting heavy weights and working in dangerous jobs like offshore fishermen like on deadliest catch. Were also good at making up excuses and procrastinating!

The local NCFM chapter here does work on those issues. That's most of what they do.

From their April meeting agenda:

"4. First Steps Baby Expo, Saint Cloud, April 12"
"7. Rochester Baby & Kids Expo, May 17"
"9. Saint Francis Baby Fair, Shakopee, June 14"

They have booths at several of those events each year. They staff them for 4-8 hours with volunteers. The main issues that they do outreach on are circumcision, excessive drugging of kids, and unnecessary punishment of schoolkids for harmless things like fidgeting. The latter two would help a lot of Aspies and quite a few girls.

Women's groups are equally deserving of your criticism: lashing out at "unrealistic" models in swimsuit ads doesn't do much to stop girls from competing with each-other on beauty. They start doing that long before puberty, long before they have any interest in boys that would allow us to influence them.



What I said was hardly "an attack on feminism," as you breathlessly put it. I re-posted a response from A Voice For Men to the #killallmen Twitter hashtag, and added a follow-on comment. Four out of my five sentences focused on shoddy, gender-biased science. The other was a preface.

You can disagree with AVFM's statement that feminists are 'making a mockery' of genital mutilation (by acting as though it's a girls' issue), but remember that I've taken flak here for supposedly ignoring equal participation by women in manufacturing. As it happens, the numbers support what I said:

http://www.wantedanalytics.com/analysis ... ufacturing

The male-female split is 73%-27%. As the article noted, there's also a skill-gap in the same direction.

In the case of genital mutilation, the rate of MGM in the US dwarfs that of FGM (maybe by 50 to 1).



Gladly. During the "recession," men lost 2.6 jobs for every job lost by a woman, even though women made up almost exactly 50% of the workforce. (Both figures come from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.) That's not because men weren't pulling our weight. In many cases (like specialty manufacturing), we did work that was quite a bit better than other segments of the market.

A case in point: Back in the '90s, when Intel was bragging about 600 nanometer wires, the company that I later worked at was already making production machines that moved to an accuracy of one nanometer. Even the error was consistent to a few picometers, less the the atomic radius of any atom. They were used in chipmaking, but also in a lot of other industries. A lot of websites wouldn't be viable without the work that we did to improve hard disk manufacture. Our systems helped fields like medicine by allowing snp-chips, better scopes, and bioinformatics, and remember that medical schools in the US now graduate more women than men.

We didn't get much love in return: We were offered no grant money, and in fact we funded academic research whenever we needed something that we weren't equipped to do in-house. Universities didn't train engineers to do our level of work, so we did most of our own professional training.

People like Paul Krugman of the New York Times wrote off job losses in manufacturing by painting us as a traditionalist backwater that lost relevance when cooler things came along. That's utterly ignorant: Judged on technical merit, we were decades ahead of his cool kids.

So from where I stood, yes: I created jobs for women who worked in protected industries (like medicine), and at the same time my own job was exposed to foreign competition and cheap-shots from pseudo-intellectuals alike.



Would you not?

The president of my country said: "Today, the average full-time working woman earns just 77 cents for every dollar a man earns…in 2014, that’s an embarrassment. It is wrong."

That's been well debunked: http://spectator.org/blog/57588/obamas- ... m-debunked



By the same token, if women in the 1800s or early 1900s could have snapped their fingers and gotten rid of patriarchy, they wouldn't have been free. Dead is more like it.

I'd much rather get rid of chivalry. Even a lot of ostensibly-edgy leftist men still champion women while shrugging off the problems of their own gender. That made perfect sense 200 years ago. It's hard to see how it does now.



I'm becoming quite acquainted with your opinions.

AVFM is one of the more reactionary men's rights sites, and the aforementioned Twittering barely got a rise out of them. That doesn't support your charge of a victim mentality, nor starvingartist's affirmative answer to the title of this thread.

As I noted earlier in reply to Geekonychus, those bogeymen "MRAs" do more face-to-face advocacy for school reforms that would help Aspie kids than most of you professional victims have done to help yourselves.



If expressing mild consternation at the suggestion that we all be killed is grounds in your mind for total ostracism of a group of people, then you're a lot more reactionary than they are. And if the self-repression in that attitude is "progress," it explains why serious men's groups exist.



You've accused me of making an unsupported claim. For your part, you've made unsupported personal accusations against me and other men, and lectured me at length on what economic policies you believe world leaders should enact. Outlandishly, you've accused me of being a 'fake libertarian.' Here in the States, we make good fun of people like Grover Norquist for those sorts of statements Had my comment about Bastiat made me a libertarian, preferring that trade liberalization be enacted uniformly could not make me a "fake" one.



Why would you use a standard of "conspiracy" here? You used an utterly different standard below:



So to summarize your position, women's groups aren't guilty unless they've conspired to harm men, but men are guilty if we don't work miracles.

(By the way, I don't understand the narrow standard of culpability that you chaps apply to women: They control 70% of US consumer spending, vote at a higher rate than men, and win elections at a higher rate whenever they bother to run. Do you think that they can't handle more responsibility?)



I've already given you plenty to shoot at. If you have a beef, shoot away.



A principle is something that you afford to everyone. (See above.) When I've invoked your "basic principle of fairness," either you or Hopper have said 'Oh, but it's not women's fault.' How is that relevant? Your claim above seems to be that anything inequitable should be fixed because that's 'the right thing to do.' I've suggested things that would be easier to fix than the problems that held up the women's movement.



Not all of the gatekeepers were men. Take childcare, which is still one of the worst barriers to gender-equal employment: My mother had to shop around for complete strangers to take care of her kids. The housewives in the neighborhood traded hours among each-other. My mother was more than willing to pay. If you want to force male institutions to make accommodations for women at work, then for Christ sake, why can't you force female-run institutions to help other women?

What we already expect of employers isn't easy. A product development cycle is as short as six months now. (We didn't ask for that. It's consumer-driven, and women make most of those buying decisions. We could do better work if it were longer.) It's a problem to have your chief engineer gone on maternity leave for three of those months, especially with no way of predicting which three.



No, it's reproduction. Not many women choose to never have sex, and until recently having sex meant having kids. Having kids meant having to work a lot. My point stands:

Regardless of how arbitrary gender roles were, women got the better half of those roles, since both men and women reliably choose stability and safety over freedom. That's why people keep applying for stable corporate jobs with good benefits even though they dislike them in most other ways.



You accused me of playing the victim card, and now you accuse me of self-promotion when I've rebutted you? My words were: "When women complained that men didn't help out enough around the house, I stepped up to the plate and learned." I did exactly that.



I addressed the statistics earlier. I want to see more women in those jobs, and I'm not the only one: Companies have a hard time filling them, even though many of them pay well. It's already easy to get those jobs, so making it easier isn't going to help. Asking more women to step up might.



A self-styled libertarian wants me to stick timidly to the mainstream... You sound a lot more like a modern American Democrat than the "classical liberal/libertarian" that you describe yourself as being. Which classical liberals have you read? Montesquieu? Bastiat?

Regardless, what egalitarian attitude are you talking about? The US has had a sharp decrease in opportunity and a sharp increase in class disparity since feminism became mainstream here. Those "mainstream rights groups" have flocked to universities that were known to be counter-meritocratic. (I've posted on that elsewhere.) They've allied themselves with a party that's as regressive on spending as Republicans are on taxation.

Last edited by NobodyKnows on 18 Apr 2014, 10:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.

interesting. i was not aware that until the onset of puberty little girls live in bubbles completely devoid of all socio-cultural and media influence. one learns something new every day.

i find the moral reasoning behind this paragraph absolutely baffling. i can't follow you at all, man. i bow out.