This post was in response to Ron Collins, apparently he disliked it enough to block me so it doesn’t show the original story.
And yet, it turns out that it takes, apparently, a Cassie Jaye and a Karen Straughan (giving new meaning to the term “yeesh”, IMO) and a Janet Bloomifield and a Christina Hoff Somers, to stand in for men and let the world know that, even though men seem by their accounting not to be quite up toi standing up for ourselves, comand presence and all that, they’re here to assure us that, gee whiz, men are human beings too.
It certainly doesn’t “take” those womens’ efforts, they are simply part of it, not sure why you’d focus merely on four women instead of the vast majority of the movement’s men, who are in fact speaking for themselves. I’m curious to know what you have against Karen or Christina? They’re advocating for issues, and doing it well with data-driven arguments.
Just ask the female-run alter-ego of feminism calling itself a “men’s rights movement”, they’ll tell you, even if it is almost a certainty it will be a woman’s voice doing the telling.
By what metric do you claim that this movement is female-run? The MRA’s have been doing their thing for awhile, a feminist simply decided to make a film about it. Do you think said feminist making the film might have something to do with women being featured? Do you think perhaps she knew that adding these women would lend some credibility to some people who would otherwise dismiss the film out of hand?
And no I haven’t seen the flick. Just the advance publicity enough was nauseating. And I am more than familiar with the Cult of Elam behind it, and more than confident that Out Of The Mouth Of Paul comes nothing of any interest, utility or promise for the future and well-being of this man.
Fair enough, don’t watch it. Though, perhaps you shouldn’t criticize it so harshly without having seen it?
I’m not clear at all how you can at once critique feminism for denying women’s agency and capacities to stand up for themselves, and in the same breath go promoting a tacky, juvenile cult of gamers and basement dwellers with the effrontery to claim they give “men” a “voice”.
Ah, something to work with. Well first of all, context is king isn’t it? The post was in response to a woman asking about what ways men were circumscribed in our culture, so my response was rather on point. For some reason you decided to read into an essentially factual response my promotion of the movement, while lobbing some tangential ad-hominems on the way. Does the notion that they are gamers and basement dwellers (based on what data?) have any influence as to the credibility of the claims? Would it be so out of line to respond to a request about the ways women are disadvantaged in our culture by directing them to a feminist organization that summarizes said ways? The veracity of the claims aside, that’s the place where the claims are made.
If you have any disagreements with any of the claims made by the movement, then by all means please share. I don’t purport to be an expert on the material, nor am i well read on the movement itself, but i do have a general understanding of the issues involved, and i fail to see where the problem is on said issues aside from your distaste of the movement and its constituents.
I don’t think a direct comparison between feminism and the men’s rights movement is a proper apples to apples one. Whereas feminism takes some combination of nonsensical/trivial issues along with some amount of non-gendered issues and mashes them together into a framework to support the notion of women as an oppressed class, the men’s rights movement appears to be a direct response to the decades long feminist movement, in an effort to counter the prevailing narrative of the “privileged male.” It’s probably similar to the notion of a rising “white identity” in response to years of white people being told that they have no problems in their lives, and that they’re the source of all the problems. The feminist worldview is one where being a man means the world opens its doors to you, where there are no major gendered problems to contend with. The MRA’s have become a thing precisely because this worldview is false, and they have felt left out of the public discourse. So, far from being timid and merely acquiescing to the prevailing narrative, they have been bucking the boat and having the audacity to claim that men in fact have just as many problems as women. This is a wildly unpopular notion, so dangerous a notion that it’s lead them to be designated as hate group by the SPLC, and speaking it on a public stage doesn’t strike me as timid or failure to assert. These people are protested for doing things as simple as having conferences to discuss why the male suicide rate is so high.
Now to be fair, there’s an amount of patronizing to be had in any movement that identifies a group of people as underprivileged and in need of attention or help. Generally, these end up leading to pointless and wasteful governmental overreaches. However, there’s an entire spectrum between patronizing and infantilizing. I have personally seen no evidence of the MRA’s being infantilizing, certainly nothing remotely in the manner of feminism. Take a peek at the issues i listed. Those are almost all issues about which hard data can be drawn up and evaluated, to have actual discussions about gendered disparities and whether their causes are gendered. Feminists, say things like there’s not enough women in STEM because girls are told to play with dolls and that maths are for boys. Feminism all too often focuses on ephemera, things that cannot be accurately identified or addressed like “unconscious bias.”
To the extent that MRA’s claim that men are being oppressed, that they cannot advance in life due to gendered disadvantages, then they are denying male agency much the same as feminism denies female agency. Personally, i have not seen this.
Again, i see the MRA’s as being a response to feminism, an attempt to show them that their gender is not the only one with gendered problems. Personally, the notion of focusing on either gender is silly, and should play second fiddle to egalitarian efforts.