"Men’s Rights Activists are cave dwelling idiots"

Submitted by Mastodon on Mon, 2015-12-28 22:21

Article here. Excerpt:

'The Men's Rights Movement begins and ends with the argument that there is no pre-existing imbalance between the rights of men and women, or that if there is any injustice it is an imbalance which prejudices men. This is dressed up in any number of concerns, some of which might seem entirely sensible, but which cumulatively amount to an activism which is hostile to women. Issues like the rights of fathers in family proceedings are used to prop up a nostalgia for a time when men had an easier time of it: a time when men could be assured of jobs, power and status, a time before feminism.

The aura of victimhood adopted by MRAs extends to criticising the extent of coverage of female genital mutilation at the expense of discussing male circumcision. MRAs routinely deny the existence of what many feminists call "rape culture" by suggesting that failures to prosecute sexual violence are the result of endemic false rape allegations, rather than societal attitudes towards consent. When the founder of MRA site "A Voice For Men" Paul Elam wrote a piece entitled "Bill Cosby's victims? Or just a bunch of drug whoring star fuckers?" he was displaying an overt hostility towards women that characterises the movement. Over 50 women have accused Bill Cosby of sexual assault. Yet Elam goes to bat for Cosby.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

... that so-called "men's magazines" are actually written for women, since women are as interested in the content thereof if not moreso than so-called "women's magazines".

Have no idea who the hell reads GQ much less subscribes to it. I speculate that the bulk of their revenue from sales derives from checkout line purchases made by middle-aged women.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Tue, 2015-12-29 23:31

When a so-called men's magazine has no sympathy for men's issues, it tells us how successful feminism has been. The appeal of feminism to men reminds me of the promise of 72 virgins to the suicidal jihadist: if you'll buy into our nonsense, you can get laid more often. Of course, access to 72 feminists is not the same as access to 72 virgins, but a man can close his eyes and pretend. In the end, feminism is still a bad deal for men, and male feminists rarely get laid as much as they think they will. And they never truly know redemption from the original sin of being born male.

Equality between men and women would seem to require a conversation between both sexes, but feminists only wanted women in the conversation. Ergo, men's issues were ignored. Articles like these are yet another attempt to keep men from voicing their opinion about equality between the sexes. Women sought to silence men by claiming men were oppressors--and the only rightful treatment of the oppressor is to overthrow and destroy him. This approach meant equality could never be achieved, for whatever men wanted would be viewed as more oppression.

As to Cosby, I still wonder why anyone hasn't gone after Bill Clinton. Well, I know why--it might hurt Hilary's chances. Of course, Bill should by an object lesson to all aspiring male feminists: Hillary is the reward for being a feminist. Can any man be motivated by the thought of 72 Hillary's? Even Bill never seemed that excited about his marriage.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Wed, 2015-12-30 00:10

I'm pretty sure I live in a regular style home with a roof, and I have a Masters degree, so while the latter doesn't necessarily make me a genius, I doubt I'm an idiot either. And I think almost all of the posters here live in regular style homes and are smart enough to write reasonably well, so I doubt the title applies to them either.

Frankly, I was surprised this was posted in GQ as I'd hoped it would be more male-positive

"...nostalgia for a time when men had an easier time of it: a time when men could be assured of jobs, power and status..." Hmm, that may have applied to the wealthy among men, but as I recall from many postings here, men at the bottom (and even the middle) were the soldiers, farmers, coal miners, lumberjacks, factory workers, etc., who labored long hours for low pay in dangerous conditions - if they had a job (see the Great Depression, for example).

Why, just from my own genealogy, my 4X great grandfather died of an infection from a scythe in the field, my 3X great grandfather perished from an illness after getting cold out in the field, and while my great-great grandfather managed to live into his late 80s as a poor Methodist minister, his son (great grandfather) was killed by a falling tree while cutting wood and his son (great uncle) was crushed in a rail yard. All at relatively young ages. [Note: the source of all this is a family history document written by my aforementioned great-great grandfather in 1865 and painstakingly transcribed by me from faded cursive text, as well as old diaries and newspaper articles. If others have such information, it could corroborate my observations that so-called "male privilege" didn't apply to most men].

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by mens_issues on Thu, 2015-12-31 01:16