Are MRAs always angry?

Post Reply New Topic

Sorry if I've missed something in your prior posts, but couldn't her back pain have been muscular?

I see scant evidence of what you are talking about. Many people who claim to be libertarian actually aren't they just want to differentiate themselves to sound special, and pretend to be against protectionism, except when it suits them.

I can't think of a more obvious example of protectionism than farm subsidies, and by my estimation that is a male dominated profession, but nobody is really getting all hot an bothered about that, or going on about its maleness being protected against foreign competition over female dominated sectors. I fail to see how these female sectors you talk of are more relevant to this than anything else.

I really fail to see how women are protected from cheap import imports, more than men. I think the argument you make it pretty weak tbh. It is you that made the link to cheap imports in the first instance. How is this the fault of women, or feminists?

I think if you are to make an example, make a better one. You score an own goal if you seek pin the blame on women for all these general issues beyond their control, rather that better though out arguments.

It is way too one track, for my taste. Why so hung up on women? At least make better arguments, otherwise it seems like you link every problem to women, and little else.

That's cute: a libertarian litmus test. You should call me a "LINO" to complete the effect.



...which accounts for very little labor in the US, and not much movement of payroll money.



Not working in manufacturing is pretty good protection from import pressure. Is the gender breakdown different in the UK?

Here is the thing, most of the issues that MRA's are angry about are caused by other men. Women generally haven't got a hand to play in it, because they still lack the economic and political capital to do so.

* Gender depictions and gender role stereotypes? Enforced by alpha-male culture.

* negative portrayal of men in the media? The media is owned and controlled for the most part, by men. What we're talking about here is the consequences of profit orientated decisions. Its not someone plotting to ruin the weekends of disenfranchised men.


Now if we look at feminist grievances, such as the stagnancy of women's wages or women's lack of political efficacy then we do see a correlation between that and the much larger stake that men have in business and politics.

If you were sincere about that, you'd realize that it goes both ways: Women in the US worry themselves sick about appearance issues that 99% of men don't even notice. The nastiest figure-bashing is in hollywood gossip magazines that are published by women and staffed by women.



I've replied to this elsewhere. The most powerful person in my state is the speaker of the state house. A rep. from the district next to mine held that post for several years, and I knew her. The mayor of my city (population of half-a-million) is a woman. She was my councilwoman for 8 years. The police chief is a woman. So was the fire chief until just a little bit ago.

Woman can and do succeed when they want to. Women who run for office in my state win at least as often as men.

Oh, it absolutely can - but:

It usually blows over quickly, so by the time you get in for an appointment, it's over. The most that a doc will do for it is tell you to take some NSAIDs and rest it.

I sometimes get sore rector spinae muscles from riding bent-over road bikes, so I have a sense of what that feels like. Usually people with sore lower back muscles will have a stiff, stable posture because it hurts to move or tense them. It helps to try to walk in a way that doesn't require a lot of muscular balance correction, so they'll take slightly smaller steps, narrow their stance and maybe lower their posture.

(You also see that kind of thing in laborers because they're sore almost all the time.)

Are you suggesting that, in the US at least, female-heavy industries have been 'protected' from the ravages of the market, and male-heavy ones have been left to crumble? If so, could you flesh out how this is, please? Are you saying this is purposeful - as in the farming example 0_equals_true offered - or just that women heavy industries have fared better of late than some male heavy ones? Because if the latter - that's capitalism.

http://www.ilo.org/washington/areas/gen ... /index.htm



Obviously, manufacturing is a lot easier to cheaply do overseas then import than nursing or teaching. That doesn't strike me as protectionism. What's more, the counterpart is to bring in cheaper immigrant labour. As Thomas81 observed, the culprit time after time in MRA complaints is capitalism and the profit motive.

You really do seem hung up on the men vs women line - if something bad befalls a man, it must be because of, or at least benefit, a woman - and particularly on a personal, individual level.

Last edited by Hopper on 14 Apr 2014, 4:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

*eats his popcorn as the polar opposites argue it out*

This is one of the more dimutive problems. The main ones as i've already mentioned, are their lack of economic and political efficacy, because of underrepresentation of the respective fields.

Stressing out over lifestyle magazines while a valid issue, is something more of a first world problem.

Either way it is hardly something that is constrained to women. Alpha men also sell analogous material to beta men, in the attempt to sell an unrealistic or unobtainable existance of mansions, fast cars, a weightlifters physique and airbrushed barbie doll girlfriends. Thats also what i meant by men being the ones to maintain and propogate binary gender roles. If a man wants to wear dresses and collect my little pony, a woman will never be the one to stand in his way.

You are very interested in labour protectionism clearly.



This is a stupid argument, you resent something that is not the fault of women. This is beyond most people's control, especially if they are not innovators.

As you know that manufacturing in general, unless specialized, is in decline in both the US an UK.

Manufacturing has always had women, e.g. factory/assembly workers in some cases, it was full of women. I worked for 1st tier supplier in the car industry, making components for all the major brands (Volvo, Ford, Nissan, etc), quick look on the assembly line the full of women. Even the injection molding machines had some women manning them. Btw in the 1970s there was even more women working on the line, there is more men now.

Nowadays it is employing more women in the technical and management side, especially stuff like quality control and continuous improvement.

I return to my point of you thinking everything you don't like being related to women.

Not as hung up as you are on every female hardship being caused by men. I gave examples:

1: "Girls may have been married off at the age of 7 (as a feminist poster on another thread claimed), but boys were apprenticed off at that age as well. They became the property of cobblers, tailors or blacksmiths." That was bad for both genders, not just girls. It was caused by an excess of kids and a shortage of food, not misogyny.

2: Lots of women didn't support feminism when it was new. They treated my mother very badly.

3: Plenty of "pretty girls" are nasty to tomboys. By the time a hardworking girl is old enough to be discriminated against by colleges and employers, she's already had years of barriers put in front of her by other girls. You blame it all on the patriarchy when it was other girls who gained competitively against her by doing it.

4: The childcare system among housewives was reciprocity-based. That's hardly friendly to mothers with full-time jobs outside of the home.

5: "Women in the US worry themselves sick about appearance issues that 99% of men don't even notice. The nastiest figure-bashing is in hollywood gossip magazines that are published by women and staffed by women." They're also read almost exclusively by women.



In that sense it is, but I've known gullible guys who let girls shame them with horror stories about "impossible" appearance standards. It's fair to point out that the worst of those aren't the handiwork of men.



Agreed.



You only brought up a single, assembly-centered industry. I worked with Bosch, Seagate, Nikon, Zeiss, Applied Materials, Okamoto, Mitsui, GE, 3M, Lockheed and others, and the people that I worked with were mostly men. You prove our point. Your sense of agriculture is way off. The only dumb thing here is that you ask me to prove things to your satisfaction when you haven't held feminist arguments to the same standard.

I've given you and Hopper plenty of chances to show how the feminist arguments are really correct. Here's just one, from my first post to this thread: "If women believe that they were forced into domestic roles by men acting capriciously, then they need to show how gender integration could have been achieved in the 1800s or earlier." I got no takers when I posted that. Half of the feminist case is unsupported if they can't carry that one. You want me to prove stuff? Eat your own soup.



I don't think that men are stopping women, either. If a woman wants to do her own thing, she can. She doesn't even lose many opportunities. A lesbian friend of mine had a crew-cut, never wore makeup, didn't try to make her skin look artificially youthful, did absolutely no figure-accentuation, didn't color-coordinate her clothes or worry about how high or low her jeans rode or whether the pant legs were hemmed a half-inch too long. She had at least three successful, thoughtful, fit guys romantically interested in her until they found out that she wouldn't be interested. And after that they were happy to be her friend.



It would actually be easier to import nurses and teachers. India is full of people more qualified to teach English than most Americans. Even for those who've emigrated, teaching certifications in the US are deliberately onerous. We also have full-fledged doctors from overseas already living here who aren't allowed to practice unless they re-do their internships. By contrast, an Indian engineer who moves here can compete for jobs from the day his plane lands.

It was extremely hard to move manufacturing overseas in the first place. The US didn't have a national highway system until the 1950s, and yet by the '70s and 80s we were building road systems in faraway parts of the world simply so that we could access cheap labor there. That meant building power plants and electrical grids, and even things as basic as a reliable water supply. Then we had to ship the machines there, and even a small lathe weighs 6,000 pounds.

so to the OP, in summation: yes.

thank you to nobodyknows for belabouring the point for us all.

You're welcome

Maybe not, but I must admit that you're a master or all-caps and multiple exclamation points.

Your welcome! I got bored with the feminist gig so I decided to pick on the MRAs now I am equal opportunity! My mishief combined with curiosity and hyperactivity get to me!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7LTzEmnyms[/youtube]MRA in a nutshell theyre just mad because women refuse to manufacture sandwitches for them

In the Air Force, I attended an employment workshop.

The woman who was running it warned us ladies that female interviewers were the absolute worst when it cam to judging other women on appearance, or whether our shoes matched our purses.

Like I said elsewhere, I'm pretty ugly as far as female pulchritude goes, but I've always managed to make a living for myself.