Miles Quaritch
Member
True, but I haven't really seen many feminist groups highlighting the issues surrounding prostate cancer.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Can we discuss the MRA documentary "The Red Pill"?
- Thread starter Moff
- Start date
True, but I haven't really seen many feminist groups highlighting the issues surrounding prostate cancer.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
I do agree.
I could imagine that feminism, taken to it's logical end (gender equality), would ease almost all the ills that males face.
But as a matter of practicality, a group coalesced around the concept of feminism is going to further the advancement of women first and foremost (can't blame em). All that stuff like male custody of children, alimony, and the marginalization of men's emotion, is surely of value to feminists... but it's just going to be of less priority in the fight than say, getting women equal pay (again, can't blame em).
I think there could be room for a feminist group focused on male issues. Maybe don't even call it feminism, but working hand-in-hand with feminists because it's the same ultimate goal? I dunno.
KaoteK
Member
Came to post this, am gladly beaten. Thank you.
Well in the UK we have a prostate cancer awareness week.
completely agreed.
Messofanego
Banned
I've heard more from feminists and mental health awareness campaigns about male suicide rates than MRAs focusing on that. It's probably because toxic masculinity plays a big part in male suicides. Men shouldn't open up about their emotions. They shouldn't talk to their friends about sensitive issues. They should "man up" and sort everything out by themselves. Keep it bottled inside. No wonder when men feel they have no one else to turn to, they end their life and are more successful than women at it.
Miles Quaritch
Member
We do, we also have a testicular cancer week too.
My comment was more in that some issues can benefit from a gender specific advocacy group to push them into the mainstream on a more regular basis.
Prostate cancer would be one of those very few issues.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
I'm sure it does. But where's its brand mojo? It's marginal to the point that it barely exists....
Every few years I have this discussion and someone points to some male-focused footnote of feminist history. I'm appreciative of the fact that it exists on paper, but in terms of greater society, it barely registers. If someone like me sympathetic to discourse with feminists thinks its marginal, imagine the average male.
A vigorous male-focused movement in league with feminism would effectively close the "what about men" chink in the amor that MRA's have exploited.
Exactly. It really comes down to priorities.
I see feminism as a book that contains a list of good ideas. Different types of feminists will order those ideas differently. It should come as a shock to no one that men specific issues are going to be placed lower in the list - much further back in that book. Which is fine and perfectly understandable as people will concentrate on the issues that personally affect themselves and will shy away from issues that could even theoretically negatively affect themselves.
I hope many here can sympathize that it would feel patronizing to be told that your issue is "in the book" but you just know that a lot of the readers wouldn't be bothered by never reaching that page.
I'm certain this same thinking applies when prioritizing even the major issues in feminism like with race, LGBTQ, maternity leave, equal pay, etc. It's just an inherent flaw in having to fight for so many things all at once.
Messofanego
Banned
I don't think she's ever identified as a MRA. She's done great work in domestic violence shelters, and highlighting how men are also victims.
Fudgepuppy
Banned
I feel it's my duty as a feminist to watch it, but at the same time, I don't think I physically can. It would be like watching a documentary about how global warming is a hoax, that the world is flat, or that we should eat more animals. My body would just start convulsing and gagging.
Trans women ARE women and therefore most are feminists by default
Prostate cancer is basically THE easiest cancer to detect and with early detection the survival rate is massive.
The problem is that lots of men don't want to do the exam BECAAAAAUSE it will make them look "feminine" because it includes someone putting a finger on their butt and this is obviously reserved for feminine individuals
Whoa weird autocorrect accident or misreading. Fixed it.
Not to be rude, but I think that Neogaf isn't a very good place to discuss this documentary due to the bias that the site has.
Plus, i'm pretty sure less than half of the people in the thread have even seen the documentary. If you don't want to give money to the producers, there are ways to watch it without paying a cent.
Plus, i'm pretty sure less than half of the people in the thread have even seen the documentary. If you don't want to give money to the producers, there are ways to watch it without paying a cent.
One of the most useful skills in this current political climate is the ability to observe and take in opposite view points, even if you don't agree with them.
Creating an Echo Chamber does nothing useful and can potentially cause a lot of harm.
kinoki
Illness is the doctor to whom we pay most heed; to kindness, to knowledge, we make promise only; pain we obey.
There really is a problem with this line of thinking because the only people who are willing to do that is those who are moderate and realistic. MRA is an extreme opinion since it's based on hate and conflict, which is a shame because we're going to need someone speaking up for men's rights in the coming decades if current social and economic trends keep up. And since they are built on conflict with a clear opponent there is no middle ground. The MRA is never going to meet half way, they're not going to try to understand and they're never going to try to live together. With an opposition that is never going to even try: why should you? Just because echo-chamber warnings? Or out of the need to inform yourself? At some point you have to just exclude certain viewpoints. You're not going to find middle ground listening or take in views by listening to someone who thinks the earth is flat and rests on a turtles back. They're not going to accept real facts or debate on the same terms.
The intentions of the producers/filmmaker behind this project are well known. Indulging toxic movements leads to their normalization.
CannonFodder52
Member
I mean, if you tried asking about this on most any other large gaming related sites you'd probably have a far worse time. At least people here know what feminism is, which helps with understanding an anti-feminist film.
I saw it at the begining of the year when a feminist group had a screening of it. I remember being pretty bored by it, but I will try to do my shitty version of watch and write a post as I watch this weekend.
Will not be as good as THE God is Dead post, but I will try my best to put lots of links with sources ...like how fathers being fucked by custody is basicaly a myth, with reality showing that WHEN THE FATHER ASKS FOR CUSTODY there is actually a slightly bigger chance of him getting than the mother, probably due to how men usualy wins more money than women and are therefore more prepared to give the children a better life. The myth exists because men asks MUCH LESS than women to actual custody
CannonFodder52
Member
Oh
-
People protested the showing of the film in my city and it ended up getting canceled.
I'm not really that happy about it either. I feel like a film that's being protested and others are trying to prevent you from seeing, becomes a lot more attractive to people who otherwise might have had no interest. It also garners more media around it as well.
I created an account a while ago, but I never bothered to actually post anything until now.
The mere act of watching the documentary isn't going to result in normalization.
That sounds like a generalisation.
Remember that the worst part of a community is very often also the most vocal.
Anything in particular that really caught your eye?
Just like Gamergate, right? A few bad apples that harass and stalk women, but the majority are in it for ethics in game journalism.
I mean, I haven't read Mein Kampf, but I can undestand why people have for academic reasons. But it's purely a historical propaganda piece. This documentary doesn't even have that historical selling point to it.
You mean the leaders of that particular community are the worst part of it, right? And the silent moderates are okay with being representated by such people, but they are more moderate and reasonable, right?
dantevsninjas
Member
Let's extrapolate on that. If you were presented a one-sided, misinformed view of this particular person in that documentary, then isn't it possible that the same tactic is employed around other people featured in the film? Isn't is possible that the whole thing is actually just propaganda designed to pull you into a cause without presenting the whole picture?
Looks like we have another example of 'Godwin's Law'.
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1. That is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or his deeds."
Dice//
Banned
I actually agree with this.
Problem is when I look at the men's right subreddit or other spaces a lot of it seems mostly complaining about women not getting enough jail time for things (which is indeed a problem in and of itself) or stuff about divorce but little else. There's little call to action about other issues... just complaints.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/6k5s2n/discussion_with_my_feminist_uncle/
Or this which is similarly....just...not right, and plays the game of oppression olympics.
If it's a documentary making fun of feminists I'm not really into them cherry-picking a few stupid cows who poo-poo men's problems; because that's not how it works. But yeah I'm on the side that feminism is about breaking down gender roles and can help women and help men.
Watching blatant propogangda is not going to fascilate a rational discussion.
Yeah, FlynJ, why did you assume boo was talking about Gamergate when defending MRA propaganda? Why did you imply a massive unprovable overlap between the two movements, FlyngJ?!
Mein Kampf has much more merit in being read in academic circles than this documentary. Take away the historical context, and it's just an angry man being angry and looking for scapegoats.
Messofanego
Banned
There is not enough academic and credentialed people on the MRA side to make logical cases, going by this Red Pill documentary. Warren Farrell is probably the only person worth listening to and isn't focused on tearing down feminism since he has history fighting for women's rights and has recently focused on men too. He's probably the only academic person on the mens' rights side (although I don't think he identifies as MRA). Fred Hayward is more specific and personal about his bad custody story.
EDIT: Just checked up on Warren Farrell and his views on incest YIKES! I take back what I said about him.
http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2...search-with-evasive-non-answers-and-a-smiley/
Yeah, he was definitely couching his langugage and points in this documentary.
The documentary doesn't do much to criticise these MRA figures directly.
There's a bit too much focus on feelings rather than facts, more anecdotes than statistics, which is ironic considering the MRAs at the start of the documentary are shown to be against. No one makes a convincing case that there is gender discrimination towards men under the law.
Where the documentary succeeds is when it's just focused on men's issues, especially custody cases or men being victims of domestic abuse. It falls apart when these people start talking about as a reaction to feminism, that men are the ones actually discriminated against, that women have the advantage in this world in terms of employment and education. Basically, everything that Paul Elam goes on about with his hyperbolic rhetorics.
These MRAs bring up gender expectations, but don't make a convincing case for how feminism is responsible for any of the issues that men face like the statistic shown a few times about male deaths due to workplace, war, or suicide.
CUSTODY
The documentary makes a good point that people who join up to be MRAs are usually divorced men who feel they've been disadvantaged by the family courts. However, on the feminist side like Michael Messner explains, there is reasoning for why this statistic is a thing.
Dispelling The Myth Of Gender Bias In The Family Court System - Cathy Meyer
According to a Pew Research Center analysis of the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) released in June of 2011:
Divorced Fathers:
Is the Family Court to blame according to statistics?
So, the statistics don't back up this gender discrimination towards men in custody cases.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
I think the most supported statisctic in the documentary is about domestic violence and how there aren't enough shelters for men. That a lot of men are also victims.
CDC:
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS-StateReportBook.pdf
The documentary at the very end briefly mentions the online manosphere. That Reddit's redpill community and MGTOW see themselves at odds with MRAs because they are the more extreme version and want to take advantage of the system. It highlights an important point for us that we people at NeoGAF mostly come across MRAs as these online people who are way more extremist and hateful than what the IRL MRAs in this documentary are shown, especially of the older age. Even then, the older MRAs might just be coaching their language for the documentary, and I'm certainly in big disagreement with people like Paul Elam, Harry Crouch; I only really see eye-to-eye with Erin Pizzey'sand Warren Farrell's points.
However, as long as MRAs keep focusing on feminism, they're not going to get anywhere. MRAs and feminists can join on bipartisan issues like domestic violence.
EDIT: Just checked up on Warren Farrell and his views on incest YIKES! I take back what I said about him.
http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2...search-with-evasive-non-answers-and-a-smiley/
Yeah, he was definitely couching his langugage and points in this documentary.
The documentary doesn't do much to criticise these MRA figures directly.
There's a bit too much focus on feelings rather than facts, more anecdotes than statistics, which is ironic considering the MRAs at the start of the documentary are shown to be against. No one makes a convincing case that there is gender discrimination towards men under the law.
Where the documentary succeeds is when it's just focused on men's issues, especially custody cases or men being victims of domestic abuse. It falls apart when these people start talking about as a reaction to feminism, that men are the ones actually discriminated against, that women have the advantage in this world in terms of employment and education. Basically, everything that Paul Elam goes on about with his hyperbolic rhetorics.
These MRAs bring up gender expectations, but don't make a convincing case for how feminism is responsible for any of the issues that men face like the statistic shown a few times about male deaths due to workplace, war, or suicide.
CUSTODY
The documentary makes a good point that people who join up to be MRAs are usually divorced men who feel they've been disadvantaged by the family courts. However, on the feminist side like Michael Messner explains, there is reasoning for why this statistic is a thing.
Dispelling The Myth Of Gender Bias In The Family Court System - Cathy Meyer
According to a Pew Research Center analysis of the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) released in June of 2011:
"...a married father spends on average 6.5 hours a week taking part in primary child care activities with his children. The married mother spends on average 12.9 hours. Since two-income households are now the norm, not the exception, the above information indicates that not only are mothers working, but they are also doing twice as much child care as fathers.
It only makes sense that mothers who have a closer bond due to the time spent caring for a child be the one more likely to retain primary custody after a divorce."
It only makes sense that mothers who have a closer bond due to the time spent caring for a child be the one more likely to retain primary custody after a divorce."
Divorced Fathers:
"According to the above study, when fathers and children live separately, 22 percent of fathers see their children more than once a week. Twenty-nine percent of fathers see their children one to four times a month. The most disturbing fact though is that 27 percent of fathers have no contact with their children at all.
When you take into consideration that mothers spend more time taking care of children before divorce and only 22 percent of fathers take advantage of spending what I would consider quality time with their children after the divorce, the fact that more mothers retain custody seems reasonable... doesn't it?"
When you take into consideration that mothers spend more time taking care of children before divorce and only 22 percent of fathers take advantage of spending what I would consider quality time with their children after the divorce, the fact that more mothers retain custody seems reasonable... doesn't it?"
Is the Family Court to blame according to statistics?
"According to DivorcePeers.com, the majority of child custody cases are not decided by the courts.
In other words, 91 percent of child custody after divorce is decided with no interference from the family court system. How can there be a bias toward mothers when fewer than 4 percent of custody decisions are made by the Family Court?"
- In 51 percent of custody cases, both parents agreed — on their own — that mom become the custodial parent.
- In 29 percent of custody cases, the decision was made without any third party involvement.
- In 11 percent of custody cases, the decision for mom to have custody was made during mediation.
- In 5 percent of custody cases, the issue was resolved after a custody evaluation.
- Only 4 percent of custody cases went to trial and of that 4 percent, only 1.5 percent completed custody litigation.
In other words, 91 percent of child custody after divorce is decided with no interference from the family court system. How can there be a bias toward mothers when fewer than 4 percent of custody decisions are made by the Family Court?"
So, the statistics don't back up this gender discrimination towards men in custody cases.
"What do these statistics tell us?
1. Fathers are less involved in their children's care during the marriage.
2. Fathers are less involved in their children's lives after divorce.
3. Mothers gain custody because the vast majority of fathers choose to give them custody.
4. There is no Family Court bias in favor of mothers because very few fathers seek custody during divorce.
I fully understand and appreciate the value of fathers in the lives of their children. We as a society should do everything in our power to encourage responsible parenting by both mothers and fathers.
After studying the statistics and working with divorcing clients for more than 10 years, it's my opinion that the 'gender bias' argument is used by some fathers who fail to understand the value of legally fighting for more time with their children during the divorce process.
A gender bias argument should not be used by a divorced father unless he has personal experience and can back up that experience with proof. Until the statistics tell us that more than 4 percent of divorced fathers are seeking custody through the Family Court system, there are few men who have such experience and proof of a true 'gender bias'."
1. Fathers are less involved in their children's care during the marriage.
2. Fathers are less involved in their children's lives after divorce.
3. Mothers gain custody because the vast majority of fathers choose to give them custody.
4. There is no Family Court bias in favor of mothers because very few fathers seek custody during divorce.
I fully understand and appreciate the value of fathers in the lives of their children. We as a society should do everything in our power to encourage responsible parenting by both mothers and fathers.
After studying the statistics and working with divorcing clients for more than 10 years, it's my opinion that the 'gender bias' argument is used by some fathers who fail to understand the value of legally fighting for more time with their children during the divorce process.
A gender bias argument should not be used by a divorced father unless he has personal experience and can back up that experience with proof. Until the statistics tell us that more than 4 percent of divorced fathers are seeking custody through the Family Court system, there are few men who have such experience and proof of a true 'gender bias'."
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
I think the most supported statisctic in the documentary is about domestic violence and how there aren't enough shelters for men. That a lot of men are also victims.
CDC:
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS-StateReportBook.pdf
Men
"In the United States, 30.9% or nearly 1 in 3 men have experienced contact sexual violence, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in his lifetime (Table 5.4). Among states, 18.5% to 38.2% (all states) of men reported any of these behaviors by an intimate partner in their lifetime (Table 5.13). State estimates were stratified into quartiles (Figure 5.2). In the twelve months preceding the survey, 6.4% of U.S. men reported any contact sexual violence, physical violence and/or stalking by an intimate partner, with reportable state estimates ranging from 4.9% to 10.7% (19 states); see Tables 5.4 and 5.14. Among all U.S. men, 7.0% reported contact sexual violence by
an intimate partner in their lifetime, with state estimates ranging from 4.2% to 12.8% (27 states); see Tables 5.4 and 5.13. During the 12 months preceding the survey, 1.8% of men reported contact sexual violence by an intimate partner (Table 5.4); state estimates were not statistically reliable. Physical violence by an intimate partner was experienced by 28.3% of U.S. men during their lifetime, and 4.7% in the 12 months preceding the
survey (Table 5.4). State estimates of men reporting physical violence by an intimate partner during their lifetime ranged from 17.8% to 36.1% (all states) and 4.2% to 6.7% during the 12 months prior to taking the survey (7 states); see Tables 5.13 and 5.14. In terms of specific types of physical violence, 26.0% of U.S. men were slapped, pushed, or shoved by an intimate partner in their lifetime, and 4.4% of men reported those behaviors in the 12 months prior to taking the survey (Table 5.4). Severe physical violence by an intimate partner during the lifetime was reported by 13.9% of U.S. men in their lifetime, and 2.1% of men in the 12 months before the survey (Table 5.4). The lifetime and
12-month prevalence of stalking by an intimate partner for U.S. men was 2.3% and 0.8% respectively (Table 5.4); lifetime and 12-month state estimates for stalking were not
statistically reliable."
Womenan intimate partner in their lifetime, with state estimates ranging from 4.2% to 12.8% (27 states); see Tables 5.4 and 5.13. During the 12 months preceding the survey, 1.8% of men reported contact sexual violence by an intimate partner (Table 5.4); state estimates were not statistically reliable. Physical violence by an intimate partner was experienced by 28.3% of U.S. men during their lifetime, and 4.7% in the 12 months preceding the
survey (Table 5.4). State estimates of men reporting physical violence by an intimate partner during their lifetime ranged from 17.8% to 36.1% (all states) and 4.2% to 6.7% during the 12 months prior to taking the survey (7 states); see Tables 5.13 and 5.14. In terms of specific types of physical violence, 26.0% of U.S. men were slapped, pushed, or shoved by an intimate partner in their lifetime, and 4.4% of men reported those behaviors in the 12 months prior to taking the survey (Table 5.4). Severe physical violence by an intimate partner during the lifetime was reported by 13.9% of U.S. men in their lifetime, and 2.1% of men in the 12 months before the survey (Table 5.4). The lifetime and
12-month prevalence of stalking by an intimate partner for U.S. men was 2.3% and 0.8% respectively (Table 5.4); lifetime and 12-month state estimates for stalking were not
statistically reliable."
"In the United States, over 1 in 3 women (37.3%) experienced contact sexual violence, physical violence, and/or stalking victimization by an intimate partner during her lifetime (Table 5.1). Individual state estimates of lifetime experiences of contact sexual violence, physical violence and/or stalking by an intimate partner ranged from 27.8% to 45.3% (all states); see Table 5.7. State estimates were stratified into quartiles (Figure 5.1). In addition, approximately 1 in 15 women (6.6%) reported contact sexual violence, physical violence, and/or stalking victimization by an intimate partner in the 12 months preceding the survey (Table 5.1). State estimates for any contact sexual violence, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner experienced by U.S. women in the 12 months prior to the survey ranged from 4.2% to 10.6% (34 states). Contact sexual violence by an intimate partner was experienced by 16.4% of U.S. women during their lifetime, with state estimates ranging from 12.0% to 22.5% of women (50 states); see Tables 5.1 and 5.7. In the last 12 months, contact sexual violence by an intimate partner was experienced by 2.1% of women in the U.S. (Table 5.1); state estimates were not statistically reliable. Physical violence by an intimate partner during the lifetime was experienced by 32.4% of U.S. women, and state estimates ranged from 25.4% to 42.1% (all states); see Tables 5.1 and 5.7. During the 12 months preceding the survey, 3.9% of U.S. women experienced physical violence by an intimate partner, and among reportable states, estimates ranged from 3.5% to 7.6% (5 states); see Tables 5.1 and 5.8. Specifically, 30.3% of U.S. women reported being slapped, pushed, or shoved by an intimate partner in their lifetime and 3.6% reported these experiences in the 12 months prior to the survey (Table 5.1). Severe physical violence by an intimate partner was reported by 23.2% of women as happening in their lifetime, and by 2.5% of women as happening in the 12 months preceding the survey (Table 5.1). Stalking by an intimate partner was experienced by 9.7% of U.S. women in their lifetime, and 2.5% in the 12 months prior to the survey (Table 5.1)."
The documentary at the very end briefly mentions the online manosphere. That Reddit's redpill community and MGTOW see themselves at odds with MRAs because they are the more extreme version and want to take advantage of the system. It highlights an important point for us that we people at NeoGAF mostly come across MRAs as these online people who are way more extremist and hateful than what the IRL MRAs in this documentary are shown, especially of the older age. Even then, the older MRAs might just be coaching their language for the documentary, and I'm certainly in big disagreement with people like Paul Elam, Harry Crouch; I only really see eye-to-eye with Erin Pizzey's
However, as long as MRAs keep focusing on feminism, they're not going to get anywhere. MRAs and feminists can join on bipartisan issues like domestic violence.
I hate it when people talk with this tone and style.
Do you think you're being funny?
Just say it in a regular style, like 'You have to admit that there is a massive overlap between Gamergate and MRA'
CannonFodder52
Member
I thought this was particularly interesting, nice detailed write up though.
-
Did anyone else get this takeaway?
The documentary producer seems uh, a bit odd. I don't see how someone who identifies as a feminst and discusses feminist issues would, upon hearing that there are issues plaguing non-women, abandon feminism as a whole.
It seems like she either had a really superficial interest and thoughts on feminism in the first place, or it made for a better film arch.
CannonFodder52
Member
Cassie Jaye is the producer eh, I wasn't talking about Milo and Mike Cernovich.
-
Also, you can edit your posts to avoid posting twice in a row.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
LOL
Seriously. Next they'll start asking what we think of Mike Cernovich and Milo.
LIKE WHO
Seriously, what are you on about? "More nuanced"? Every example so far has been a rabid misogynist.
Some of us have little patience for the intellectually dishonest. If someone "innocently" asks "hey guys what do you think of <name>" and he turns out to be some rabid misogynistic nutcase, why should we assume you are discussing in good faith?
DontBeThatGuy
Member
She's following a certain kind of money.
Dude Abides
Banned
I'll have you know that Kony2012 changed my life, sir.
lachesis
Member
Point taken. It looks like I would have to look deeper (well, in this case that reddit site, which I never really visit) to see the actual thing to see the whole picture. Having said so, I don't see the different on feminism as well - that people are quick to point of the negatives tidbits of other side first for the justification of their belief.
Many people, around the world - many truly religious people and all - like or not they live in a different realm of consciousness. And I, for myself - cannot judge them for what they believe in. They should be free to believe in the religion, or tradition of a patriarchy system - and I certainly don't condone them evil. Morality, like or not, has a lot to do with teachings and re-iterations of common belief of the religious leaders. What I do believe, is to have compassion over each other to come up with common solution.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
lachesis: If your interest is men's issues, your best bet is to focus on that and not worry about any kind of feminism whatsoever.
I know you are going through divorce and are primed to be in antagonist mode, but if you stop thinking about feminism of the "opposite side" of what you are trying to accomplish, then you'll have more success and avoid more rabbit-holes like RedPill. OTOH, if you are looking for a movement where you can feel sorry about how a woman (or women in general) have it out for you, then RedPill is just the thing for you.But that's not at all productive.
Real talk-- are you in a custody battle? How is it going? What resources do you have, of you are?
I know you are going through divorce and are primed to be in antagonist mode, but if you stop thinking about feminism of the "opposite side" of what you are trying to accomplish, then you'll have more success and avoid more rabbit-holes like RedPill. OTOH, if you are looking for a movement where you can feel sorry about how a woman (or women in general) have it out for you, then RedPill is just the thing for you.But that's not at all productive.
Real talk-- are you in a custody battle? How is it going? What resources do you have, of you are?
I can't really discuss the documentary because I'm never going to watch it, based entirely on who produced it and who it's trying to portray in better light.
I would like to say that MRA are the worst sorts of scum, full stop. There's no nuance required here.
I've also noticed that this thread is getting a wave of the same sorts of burner accounts that showed up in yesterday's wonderful Anita thread. It's a strategy, I guess.
I would like to say that MRA are the worst sorts of scum, full stop. There's no nuance required here.
I've also noticed that this thread is getting a wave of the same sorts of burner accounts that showed up in yesterday's wonderful Anita thread. It's a strategy, I guess.
What a bunch of absolute garbage victimhood nonsense.
Mossybrew
Member
Quality post with some good information, thanks.
Point us at a reasonable MRA. You are claiming they exist. So... show us?
Btw, "feminism" is a huge umbrella, and "modern feminism" isn't a term that narrows it any; you can have specific gripes about first wave, third wave, intersectional, ecofeminism, TERFs, Lean-In Feminism... there's dozens of kinds.
Whereas MRA is a narrow term that means a very specific group of people.
PlayALLtheGames
Banned
It is inherently evil. In a world where women are discriminated against at every level of society, where rape culture exists and people know it but refuse to say it out loud, to claim that women are actually the ones who are privileged and their movement to fight for equal rights is dangerous - that is fucking evil. To claim that reality is the opposite of what it is when it comes to something as important as social equality and civil rights is evil. Also vile.
If you're trying to take the middle road on this topic to prove that you're somehow more rational, it ain't working. There are things that are black and white and this is one of them.