Are MRAs always angry?

Post Reply New Topic

were did i say i am against equal pay for the same job as i do? i am a humanist and an egalitarian

I'll be happy to respond to you once you quote me correctly.



Oh, is that what I'm doing?

quite succinctly, yes.

You just seem sort of obsessed in a negative way,that's all I'm saying.
Men tell nasty jokes to other men(women do too), all the time,some are funny,some are not,it's up to individuals to say,hey,that's joke's not cool.
But you have to cut those of us who like dark humor some slack,we can't help it,we were born this way.

Ty. I can't believe I didn't see that

Haha that pretty much sums it up.

Oh, pffft. I thought I was quite clear, but obviously not. If there's anything you take issue with in what I've said, by all means, do. But that's about all I have to say to you - and other MRAs - on the matter.



Yes. There is no reason to drag feminists into this. It would be good if they were supportive of the issue - and many are, ffs - but to suppose feminism is in any way behind the perpetuation of male circumcision is stoooooooopid.

MRAs cannot but leap from talking about how the matter needs to be taken more seriously - 100% with them up to this point - without then leaping into how the feminists are against FGM but not MGM and oh! the hypocrisy. Which then devolves into stuff like this, of 'yes you are' 'no we're not' ' yes you are' ' no we're not', all the while male circumcision carries on unheeded. Why? Because MRAs would sooner make pissy jabs at feminists than actually do something about non-consented/medical male circumsision.

Frankly, this is what happens when your 'movement' can't analyse or critique for s**t. My call on the matter is, as stated, that MRAs are far, far more interested and invested in attacking and blaming feminists and feminism than they are in actually getting the issues they protest about thought about, talked about, and dealt with.



I know male circumcision can kill! I'm against the practice, for goodness sake. Have I not made that clear? So, advocates of circumcision say: this particular form of circumcision is comparatively rare, there are far safer ways of performing the ritual, and indeed procedure. To which those of us opposed to such thing say.....? All together now: regardless of the safety of the procedure, it is still unnecessary surgery performed on an unconsenting child denying them the right to bodily integrity. Thank you!

Last edited by Hopper on 19 Apr 2014, 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sephardic Male (and other MRA's), I have doubts about any of you being serious, but incase you are, I'd be curious to know what you think about this (If you don't already know what this is, read Wikipedia before you make a judgement):


A MODEST PROPOSAL

For preventing the children of poor people in Ireland, from being a
burden on their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to
the publick.

by Dr. Jonathan Swift


1729

(excerpt)

I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope will
not be liable to the least objection.

I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in
London, that a young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a
most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted,
baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a
fricasie, or a ragoust.

I do therefore humbly offer it to publick consideration, that of the
hundred and twenty thousand children, already computed, twenty thousand
may be reserved for breed, whereof only one fourth part to be males;
which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle, or swine, and my
reason is, that these children are seldom the fruits of marriage, a
circumstance not much regarded by our savages, therefore, one male will
be sufficient to serve four females. That the remaining hundred thousand
may, at a year old, be offered in sale to the persons of quality and
fortune, through the kingdom, always advising the mother to let them
suck plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump, and fat
for a good table. A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for
friends, and when the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will
make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt, will
be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter.

I have reckoned upon a medium, that a child just born will weigh 12
pounds, and in a solar year, if tolerably nursed, encreaseth to 28
pounds.

I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for
landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem
to have the best title to the children.

Infant's flesh will be in season throughout the year, but more plentiful
in March, and a little before and after; for we are told by a grave
author, an eminent French physician, that fish being a prolifick dyet,
there are more children born in Roman Catholick countries about nine
months after Lent, the markets will be more glutted than usual, because
the number of Popish infants, is at least three to one in this kingdom,
and therefore it will have one other collateral advantage, by lessening
the number of Papists among us.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_modest_proposal

Last edited by Stannis on 19 Apr 2014, 8:11 pm, edited 11 times in total.

Hopper, that was a Jewish website that I pointed you to, talking direectly about circumcision as a religious issue. I hardly avoided the connection there, nor did I "drag" feminists in.

I live in the US, where we have to deal with AIPAC. I can get a lot of crap for what I say, much more than you or starvingartist would have to worry about in the UK or Canada.

Angry MRAs are equivalent to radical feminists.


However, I agree that male circumcision is a fine example of double standards against males, it is not caused by women but much of the society take it as a natural standard procedure, which it should not. However, I've encountered a lot of women who prefer circumcised penises and get offended by the idea to stop the procedure, this attitude is purely cultural, Americans and Muslim societies encourage male circumcision hence why most of their women prefer circumcised penises for their partners and their sons (they find the idea of natural penis gross) while most European women find circumcision gross and backward.

No, "health benefits" and appearance benefits don't justify it, male circumcision is a mutilation too! It would be like saying that removing breasts from female infants has health benefits regarding breast cancer. Like the FGM, the custom had originally the same reasons: Controlling male sexuality and "preventing" boys to masturbate easily.

A skin product founded by Oprah contains male foreskin cells, just imagine how Oprah would respond if a skin cream for men went on the market that was made from parts of the genitalia of little girls. That would be an outrage and rightly so.

I am even against piercing ears of baby girls, let alone removing a whole foreskin, hmm that would be a hard conflict with any future partner who happens to be somehow even moderately religious; I don't know a single mother in my surrounding who wouldn't pierce her little daughters' ears or go against her boy's circumcision. That's another serious dating issue I didn't think about before! lol.

It was meant to be a probing question. I wanted to see if you were truly offended or if you just wanted to debate. There is a very important difference and it matters.

I was trying to understand where you are coming from.

Tch. With my image to maintain? [Straightens tie, walks into doorframe]



I think the radical* feminists get the edge, though, as they put effort and structure into their thinking, however wrong one may find it. Whereas for MRAs it's the equivalent of very basic comprehension learning - you know the kind of thing, where a paragraph will have three sentences, one of which is 'John's kite is red', and the question is, 'who has a red kite?'. It's like that, only everything is the fault of feminists and/or feminism.

Otherwise you make sensible and agreeable points.

*Do they designate themselves so, or are they designated so by others?

Sure



My movement can't analyze or critique?

Let's recap:



So yeah, you feminists were totally on target there.



Yeah, calling my argument "stupid" is a much better way to "analyze or critique," especially when you guys get your facts wrong:



And again here:





You may not like this argument, and you may not agree with it, but you haven't offered a better one.

For a sideshow, the US president was fibbing on gender-issues here as well: "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."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... io-rating/
http://spectator.org/blog/57588/obamas- ... m-debunked



Yes, so back to the first issue:



I'm not going to accept that any more than second wave feminists accepted 'normality' as an excuse for patriarchy or FGM.



Where did you find "blocking" (or any synonym) in what I wrote? I'm obviously not going to answer for what you wish I'd said.

I guess its easy to conclude that both feminists and MRAs are always angry!

MGM is normal Hopper? Just because most do it?

Guess what, enslavement was done by most, was it normal?

Your argument regarding MGM is very weak.

and starvingkid, I *really* want to hear your opinion regarding MGM.

[Citation Needed]