Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't believe these attitudes are "isolated" among that particular group of people (the men's rights advocates that are all part of the "manosphere," Red Pill, Men Going Their Own Way). I also don't doubt that the GQ article is accurate. It's not some snopes-debunked chain email story we're talking about, it's a recent account of some people going to this MRA convention and reporting what they witnessed there. Unless you think they're taking a page from Brian Williams, then I think we must believe the story as reported.
Of course there are men who have legitimate concerns and beefs about some of the inequity and overly politically correct philosophies out there, but they don't generally associate with the "manosphere" groups, because those groups are toxic and extreme. A well-balanced man with some legitimate concerns wouldn't want anything to do with the manosphere. Those people are nuts.
I don't know much about which feminist groups are extreme and which are not. The ones who are extreme are no different than the manosphere. All toxic, nasty people.
I think this is where the problem starts. The use of the term "manosphere" is somewhat condescending in itself. Even the term "MRA" seems largely designed to be a diminution of the concept of men's rights. There is an overriding belief among many feminists that the very notion of men's rights is illegitimate-- resulting in either contempt, or in dismissal of the issues raised by men. Arguing that "A well-balanced man with some legitimate concerns wouldn't want anything to do with the manosphere" is no different than arguing that a well-balanced woman with some legitimate concerns wouldn't want anything to do with feminism. It's a non-sequitur which does absolutely nothing to address any real issues.
It's also important to remember that feminism is a highly-matured ideology. That is to say that it has been around for a long time, and has developed many facets and sub-ideologies. Feminism is also well organized, well financed, and has very deep social media roots. Feminism has also been largely acculturated by the mainstreams of American society.
Given that their existence is primarily due to fairly recent societal over-corrections in regards to the historical inequities faced by women, men's rights activists have only been around for a couple of decades. Men's rights activists are still viewed as outliers among civil rights movements--perhaps because of the fact that their finances and cultural power are dwarfed by those of feminism. As with many nascent social movements, the relevant activists involved are often dismissed by the mainstream, while the more reckless among them are posited as the face of the social movement as a whole. This is something which actually has many parallels to the way first wave feminists (the suffragettes in the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries) and second wave feminists (in the 1960s-1970s) were treated.
I don't know or care about the veracity of the GQ article. None of the things said here would surprise me. My point is that they're not typical of the people involved in men's rights, any more than the hatred expressed towards men by a small segment of feminism represents feminism as a whole. Why not link an article about the men who are respectfully fighting for father's rights in custody battles, or an article about those addressing the growing problem of young men in higher education being systematically deprived of due process in administrative hearings?
Most feminists and most men's rights activists are decent human beings who are sincerely trying to address what they perceive as social and legal inequities. They may or may not have a legitimate point of view--that's what needs to be rationally and fairly debated. They may from time to time lose their temper or patience, but in the end, they really do want equality instead of some kind of gender war.
Unfortunately, there are a small number of feminists, and of men's rights activists, who are so consumed with hatred, animosity, and ignorance; that they say and do things which are counter-productive to the ideas of gender equality and gender peace. The referenced GQ link gives images of such. Again, I could easily give you links to verifiable accounts of women's studies professors, authors, and other radical feminists making intensely hateful and uninformed statements about men. But I'm really not interested in trading-off links to individual gender warmongers, while we could be discussing serious subjects.
With your last sentence, I'm in total agreement. There are a lot of toxic people out there on both sides. I don't mind shining a light of ridicule on any of them, but let's not allow those extreme examples to represent the larger body of individuals who are trying to address things in a reasonable and rational manner.
I think this is where the problem starts. The use of the term "manosphere" is somewhat condescending in itself.
Manosphere Wiki. This is what they call themselves. Look at the links at the bottom. Links to well-known "manosphere" sites. Manosphere.com I can't check all the links there, but a few stand out and they are the same-old same-old crazy, nasty "manosphere" sites that I've been talking about and so has GQ.
You seem to want to defend men's rights. I have no problem with a rational defense of issues that pertain mostly to men (equal child support and things like that). So if you take offense that I connect "men's rights" with something crazy and negative, point me to a site that has a well-reasoned, non-crazy, popular, well-known site that purports to fight for men's rights.
Quote:
I don't know or care about the veracity of the GQ article. None of the things said here would surprise me. My point is that they're not typical of the people involved in men's rights, any more than the hatred expressed towards men by a small segment of feminism represents feminism as a whole.
Show me a link to a group involved in men's rights (a popular group, one that it's easy to find) that is not extremist.
I would hope that one would exist, but I don't see any evidence that they belong to the "manosphere," and the manosphere is what I'm talking about.
Some interesting articles. THIS is what I'm talking about. When I talk disdainfully about "Men's Rights" groups, these are who I mean. Are they the majority of men who claim to support "men's rights"? I don't know. But they are visible, very vocal, and are making us (the public) assume that they are the "Manosphere."
Quote:
Why not link an article about the men who are respectfully fighting for father's rights in custody battles, or an article about those addressing the growing problem of young men in higher education being systematically deprived of due process in administrative hearings?
No, I'm asking YOU to do that, because when I look up "Manosphere," the above links are what I see. When I encounter men who self-identify as "men's rights" advocates, they fit neatly into the above "manosphere" type of groups.
So can you understand WHY I refer to the "manosphere" in such a way? They do it to themselves.
You want to make the case that these guys are the minority, some fringe movement that should be ignored? Show me the big, BIG group of rational, normal, decent men that far overshadow these other groups and show me where I'm wrong, that these toxic groups are so small and insignificant that they don't belong to the self-identified "men's rights" movement.
JobSeeker, you keep on avoiding and/or ignoring my question about whether you are part of the "manosphere," so I'm going to take that silence as a "yes."
By law, physically assaulting someone for that would have her placed under arrest. Happened at my school sometimes too, but just like guys giving each other wedgies, no one fought over it. Is it okay? No. Is it that serious to fight over? No. More like an annoyance of immaturity.
When you tell someone to stop touching you, and they don't, giving them a bloody nose is within the law.
But if the boy had done it to the lunch lady or school nurse or a teacher instead of a 15 yr. old student, would it be worthy of a reaction then? That's what really gets me. Why is it not a big deal when done to a minor but would get quite the reaction if done to an adult.
Then you'd really be screwed. Imagine the uproar if a teacher defended herself from a student sexually assaulting her.
Well, women say they want "real men" and thats what "real boys" do, is snap bras. may not like it but thats just how it is; they play in the mud, they stick frogs in their pockets, and they snap bras.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
