Lets get this out into the open: MRAs

[Traitorfish]

Kaiserguard's conception of masculinity seems to consist of equal parts chivalry and contempt. I'm not sure either are healthy.

 

[Borachio]

I assumed his post was satire. I can't think of any other explanation.

Though I've seen something similar. Can't remember when. So he may have copy-pasted it from a PUA site or somewhere.

 

[Traitorfish]

I dunno, this is the guy who cheerfully describes himself as an "anti-democratic reactionary". If it's satire, he's deeply invested in the bit.

 

[Borachio]

Well, true, true.

 

[warpus]

Claiming that women physically abuse men as much as men physically abuse women is just sheer nonsense.

Yeah, I never said that's what the statistics mean, though. All I said was that it was interesting that the study I read concluded that most domestic violence was perpetrated by women, not men. That some people take that to mean that more women beat men at home as opposed to the opposite, is not my problem.

I suppose I should have been more clear, but I wanted to see how people would respond.

And if that's not even correct, as I think some are saying, then I would take that post back, but I have no idea. It comes from a study that seemed to have the backing of people who study this sort of stuff.

 

[Borachio]

A lot depends on what you call abuse, though. I was very lightly slapped by a woman only today. You know how they do that, when you've said something very mildly outrageous and they want to playfully reprimand you? I suppose technically it qualifies as an assault. But as far as I'm concerned she can do it all she wants. And more.

Much more.

I wouldn't dream of doing the same, though.

And could it be this sort of thing that skews the data?

 

[NovaKart]

I don't even know... I can't even begin to comprehend the mind-set that came up with this sentence. If I invite someone, man or woman, out to dinner, I expect to pay. If they invite me, I expect them to pay - though I'd be happy to offer to pay.


Again, I fail to comprehend. Isn't it simply wrong for anyone to strike another? I don't see how it's more wrong for one gender to strike the other, or vice versa.


So paedophilia is an OK thing, now? When did this happen?

The person who wrote this is full of hate. Just don't hate... anything really. Hate is self-destructive, imo.


The military is not the place for anyone. Violence of any kind is not an answer to anything. If it does anything, it makes things worse.

Here you go again. What's with all the hate?

Hate. Hate. Hate. Bullying for any reason should be discouraged though.


"Find better women. Find better women. Find better women."

Something tells me the person who wrote this has a one track mind. Maybe women aren't far out when they stereotype the person who wrote this?

Find... something else to take an interest in.


You might do better to insist that everyone should protect everyone else from being raped, if the circumstances demand it.

"Real Man"? Piffle! Not even close.

I remember once we had a real disagreement about gender issues but I 100% agree with your post this time.

 

[classical_hero]

Untrue, in my experience. Men get in trouble for trying to make gender issues all about them. If men want to address men's issues, they should construct spaces in which to do it, and most feminists are supportive of such a project. Serious scholarly studies into men and masculinity (the "men's studies" classes that MRAs like to demand but refuse to actually take), for example, have grown out of feminist scholarship, with the support of feminist scholars.

You can point to feminist hostility towards "men's rights" groups and websites, but feminists don't criticise them simply because they're for men, but because they're deranged, retrograde hate-clubs. To put it bluntly. At best, they're pity-parties, where men can commiserate each other on their frustrations, without actually doing anything to improve themselves or the world. Progressive men's groups and websites- which exist, but which I doubt you've ever bothered to explore- are not met with the same ire, but rather with sympathy and (if sometimes critical) support.

Have you seen the work of some modern feminists? You are basically describing them as well. As Gory said many reactions by some Men's group is to counter what some of the feminists are doing and in doing so they copy the same mistakes.

 

[warpus]

A lot depends on what you call abuse, though. I was very lightly slapped by a woman only today. You know how they do that, when you've said something very mildly outrageous and they want to playfully reprimand you? I suppose technically it qualifies as an assault. But as far as I'm concerned she can do it all she wants. And more.

Much more.

I wouldn't dream of doing the same, though.

And could it be this sort of thing that skews the data?

I doubt it, women playfully touching you like that is more likely to be a sexual advance rather than abuse.

 

[Rashiminos]

I doubt it, women playfully touching you like that is more likely to be a sexual advance rather than abuse.

Given notions of equality and recent discourse on unwanted touching, it really shouldn't be seen as "a sexual advance." It's not.

 

[Borachio]

I doubt it, women playfully touching you like that is more likely to be a sexual advance rather than abuse.

Oh, if only I could believe it! But that would be wishful thinking. Or tempting fate. Or something.

 

[El_Machinae]

We have to be careful what we're whining about. What was the last major success of the feminist right's movement in your area? In my area, it was the criminalization of spousal rape.

When did the change people are whining about occur? Before they were born? After?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

You know, I wonder if the 'lower sentences' thing can be explained by simple factors commonly considered in justice theory. In general, you want to make sentences severe enough to deter recidivism. Most sentencing hearings are based around the theme that the convict is less likely to re-offend than normal. A person who uses their bail time wisely can really drop down the sentence they end up receiving.

Anyway, I wonder if that's a factor.

Excuse me if I'm being obtuse (or it's already been addressed in subsequent posts), but you didn't seem to make it clear what factors you're specifically talking about, that are in women's favour over mens.

 

[warpus]

Given notions of equality and recent discourse on unwanted touching, it really shouldn't be seen as "a sexual advance." It's not.

I know, I was using another extreme to illustrate that it probably isn't abuse either. Plus Borachio seems like the type of guy who enjoys sexual advances from women.

 

[Borachio]

We have to be careful what we're whining about. What was the last major success of the feminist right's movement in your area? In my area, it was the criminalization of spousal rape.

When did the change people are whining about occur? Before they were born? After?

Don't know. It matters which change you're talking about for sure. Certainly, marital rape becoming a thing is very important. I wonder, though, whether it's as important as, say, the Equal Pay Act. Which might, I'll concede, be debatable.

Mary Wolstonecroft predates me by a considerable margin. But I personally predate The Female Eunuch.

 

[Rashiminos]

I know, I was using another extreme to illustrate that it probably isn't abuse either. Plus Borachio seems like the type of guy who enjoys sexual advances from women.

Only it's not that extreme. Unwanted touching is currently deemed to be sexual harassment (or assault), and how well did you establish that Borachio "enjoys it?" (Assuming the desire on the part of the other party versus receiving unambiguous signals that the other party would welcome advances).

 

[Borachio]

Fear not. Warpus has me bang to rights.

 

[NovaKart]

If we're going to suggest that the abuse against men is possibly of a light nature in many cases, we could do the same for women. There may be many cases where a man pushed a woman or struck back after being slapped. Without taking a closer look at the study we don't know. Some statistics include emotional abuse as well which is a very vague term.

 

[El_Machinae]

Excuse me if I'm being obtuse (or it's already been addressed in subsequent posts), but you didn't seem to make it clear what factors you're specifically talking about, that are in women's favour over mens.

Crumb, sorry. Okay, so once we acknowledge that some people are more 'deserving' of lower sentences (just due to the way the system works), is it possible that women (objectively) have an easier time meeting these criteria? I mean, it would suck if there was merely the perception they did, if they didn't, but if women do objectively have an easier time meeting these criteria, you'd expect lower sentences.

All I'm saying is that this leaps out as being a potential explanatory cause.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Crumb, sorry. Okay, so once we acknowledge that some people are more 'deserving' of lower sentences (just due to the way the system works), is it possible that women (objectively) have an easier time meeting these criteria? I mean, it would suck if there was merely the perception they did, if they didn't, but if women do objectively have an easier time meeting these criteria, you'd expect lower sentences.

All I'm saying is that this leaps out as being a potential explanatory cause.

But what are the criteria, and why would women have an easier time meeting them? And if they did wouldn't that make the criteria inherently sexist? Unless of course the women really are a lower risk of being reoffenders, but why should that be necessarily the case for the particular women in question, who are charged with the exact same crimes as the men they are being compared to? I'm not saying it couldn't be the case, but... could you give even a small example of what you mean?