Support NeoGAF

[Messofanego]

If a group feels like it isn't being listened to at all, is it not a fairly natural consequence for that group to become more abusive and hateful?

Listening to some points isn't conceding to the most militant 'MRAs' - it's about ensuring that people who do feel aggrieved feel like their legitimate points are being listened to, and ensuring that they don't end in those hateful places by default. That's what's happening right now, and it's dangerous. We can either ignore it, call them a basket of deplorables and scratch our heads as the problem gets worse - or we can do something about it. That means listening when those legitimate points are raised and not dismissing them out of hand, as has been done by many in this thread.

We don't listen? We push people away. It's a cycle that we need to break.

Who are the many dismissing the legitimate points of MRAs in this thread? Did MRAs start out being reasonable and cogent in their discussions but were shunned by all the feminists so they then decided to become extremists? Fill me in on the timeline.

People keep on bringing up that there are loads of MRAs who are intelligent and decent people worth listening to, but I'm not seeing any evidence of this.

 

[Roberto Larcos]

The problem with MRA's is they started as abusive and hateful but of course the way to fix things is for people to listen to angry bitter sexists. They know what is going to fix things and turn it all around.

A lot of people are bitter and hateful and spiteful, that sucks. But not everyone that ends up on these subreddits / forums / websites will be, at least not to begin with. A lot of people have seen the slow burn through one of their friends or family members.

I'm saying bring these issues out of the shadows. Let us discuss these issues on GAF without being shouted down - because if people feel they can't discuss these issues here, they'll discuss them elsewhere, and you know the elsewhere is more likely to contain those you despise. It's become a massive taboo - more than a taboo - to even suggest that men are prejudiced against in any walk of life in any way at all. Until we can have discussions on the merits of points in the open, those inquisitive will be forced into the shadowy places.

Who are the many dismissing the legitimate points of MRAs in this thread? Did MRAs start out being reasonable and cogent in their discussions but were shunned by all the feminists so they then decided to become extremists? Fill me in on the timeline.

People keep on bringing up that there are loads of MRAs who are intelligent and decent people worth listening to, but I'm not seeing any evidence of this.

I'll PM you a couple posts, but not going to quote or bring up names of users in this thread, as it doesn't help the level of discourse.

As for something fairly decent and intelligent, howabout this? [Are divorced dads really treated fairly by the family courts?]

A warning, I haven't done any background research on the author, so he may well turn out to be a prick - but the article itself is what you're looking for, no? Also, if you watched the documentary, perhaps you'd see how other voices are stifled.

 

[HStallion]

A lot of people are bitter and hateful and spiteful, that sucks. But not everyone that ends up on these subreddits / forums / websites will be, at least not to begin with. A lot of people have seen the slow burn through one of their friends or family members.

I'm saying bring these issues out of the shadows. Let us discuss these issues on GAF without being shouted down - because if people feel they can't discuss these issues here, they'll discuss them elsewhere, and you know the elsewhere is more likely to contain those you despise. It's become a massive taboo - more than a taboo - to even suggest that men are prejudiced against in any walk of life in any way at all. Until we can have discussions on the merits of points in the open, those inquisitive will be forced into the shadowy places.

People are discussing these issues when brought up. Its not the MRA's so why should I bother talking to sexist assholes more concerned about ranting about feminism being evil?

 

[Keri]

I didn't mean to suggest you weren't hitting that mark, but that situation isn't average. Going by Pew Research, mothers in two parent households on average spend twice as much time as fathers on childcare. If primary physical custody is (usually) awarded to the primary caregiver, it will on average be awarded to the mother. If this is something men want to change in mass I think it will require taking on more childcare duties as a group. 50/50 physical custody would more likely be a norm I think if 50/50 childcare was a norm.

This honestly cannot be said enough. Joint custody is the norm, but typically one parent has primary physical custody, to maintain stability for the children. Usually this translates to the kids living with one parent for the entire school week and seeing the other parent on weekends. And, typically, the mother is awarded primary physical custody because statistically it's the mom doing the brunt of the care giving (dropping the kids off to school, making lunches, doing their laundry, cooking, picking them up if they're sick, etc.). I have never seen any evidence that custodial agreements are biased against men, which accounts for this.

 

[Roberto Larcos]

People are discussing these issues when brought up. Its not the MRA's so why should I bother talking to sexist assholes more concerned about ranting about feminism being evil?

There are posts in this thread and others for which users would be banned if they were on other topics.

"The game is difficult for me, therefore it's rigged against all _____."

"_____ is just a bunch of disingenuous bullshit. They've done absolutley nothing to further the cause of issues facing _____ because they don't care about any of it. They just want a weapon to wield against _____, which they hate because reasons."

For me, this is not discussion - nor does it help foster discussion. This thread has been civilised enough that no-one in it needed to resort to the above. Perhaps the best point I can make is that we've spent the vast majority of this thread discussing not the actual substantive issues, but those presenting them.

 

[HStallion]

There are posts in this thread and others for which users would be banned if they were on other topics.

"The game is difficult for me, therefore it's rigged against all _____."

"_____ is just a bunch of disingenuous bullshit. They've done absolutley nothing to further the cause of issues facing _____ because they don't care about any of it. They just want a weapon to wield against _____, which they hate because reasons."

For me, this is not discussion - nor does it help foster discussion. This thread has been civilised enough that no-one in it needed to resort to the above. Perhaps the best point I can make is that we've spent the vast majority of this thread discussing not the actual substantive issues, but those presenting them.

Because there is nothing to discuss on the subject. The reason no one gets banned for calling MRA's sexist pieces of shit is because they're telling the truth.

 

[JesseEwiak]

The actual truth is, once you account for men who don't ask for equitable custody, custody is basically 50/50 in cases where it's asked for.

 

[Roberto Larcos]

Because there is nothing to discuss on the subject. The reason no one gets banned for calling MRA's sexist pieces of shit is because they're telling the truth.

I mean, but what about discussing the issues themselves? Whenever anyone even attempts to, it gets pushed back to "MRAs are cockroaches" - which isn't actually really relevant to those suffering because of the inequalities.

Can you see why this approach leads to people moving to different forums for discussion, more dangerous forums?

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

Who are the many dismissing the legitimate points of MRAs in this thread? Did MRAs start out being reasonable and cogent in their discussions but were shunned by all the feminists so they then decided to become extremists? Fill me in on the timeline.

People keep on bringing up that there are loads of MRAs who are intelligent and decent people worth listening to, but I'm not seeing any evidence of this.

It's like the "just listen to them" with conservatives. It's called being played for a fool.

The other day I randomly searched for something on youtube and came across some woman basically doing random topic videos and the moment I saw the video being called "hey 4chan" I knew exactly what that was going to be about. Apparently a lot of them 'hang out' on /lit and pretend to know literature, which of course, if you actually questioned them, would turn out to be cliffnotes knowledge. It's the exact same crap as that 'don't tell them what you're actually voting' Trump supporter shit where it's all just 'ironically' bad, when they're all just pieces of shit wanting to fool around with others.

It's the norm of a psychopath, and most of those people don't even realize they are being played themselves by the few of them that are -very, very likely- actually psychopaths.
(not to impede on your turf, but if it walks like a duck, and so on...)

 

[JesseEwiak]

I mean, but what about discussing the issues themselves? Whenever anyone even attempts to, it gets pushed back to "MRAs are cockroaches" - which isn't actually really relevant to those suffering because of the inequalities.

Can you see why this approach leads to people moving to different forums for discussion, more dangerous forums?

Because MRAs don't want a discussion, they want to be told they're the valiant hero fighting against the evil succubus jezrbel who is planning with her evil bitch of a lawyer to steal all his money.

 

[Haly]

Can you see why this approach leads to people moving to different forums for discussion, more dangerous forums?

If people want to discuss this issue so bad there is literally nothing stopping them from creating a thread, laying down some ground rules, and then having at it. We've had these kinds of threads for circumcision, for abortion, for various sensitive topics related to religion, and so on, and so forth, to mixed success, but it happens.

You know why no one makes these kinds of threads on GAF, and MRAs only get exposure here accidentally and typically negatively? Because the MRA elements that exist here are not really interested in the discussion at all. People who actually want discussion will create it, as the history of this board has proven time and time again.

Look at the Anita thread on gaming side. What do you see? A bunch of juniors and lurkers crawling out of the woodwork to shit on Anita for the umpteenth time. Her threads never fail to catch a few low-key GamerGaters. Now, do you think the people who truly believe in "ethics in games journalism" exist on GAF and just haven't spoken up all this time, or maybe the vast majority of them are just in it as an outlet for their personal anger?

 

[Roberto Larcos]

It's like the "just listen to them" with conservatives. It's called being played for a fool.

The other day I randomly searched for something on youtube and came across some woman basically doing random topic videos and the moment I saw the video being called "hey 4chan" I knew exactly what that was going to be about. Apparently a lot of them 'hang out' on /lit and pretend to know literature, which of course, if you actually questioned them, would turn out to be cliffnotes knowledge. It's the exact same crap as that 'don't tell them what you're actually voting' Trump supporter shit where it's all just 'ironically' bad, when they're all just pieces of shit wanting to fool around with others.

It's the norm of a psychopath, and most of those people don't even realize they are being played themselves by the few of them that are -very, very likely- actually psychopaths.
(not to impede on your turf, but if it walks like a duck, and so on...)

Jesus. Did you just call me a psychopath?

I'm out of this thread, apologies to the people I was actually having discussions with.

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

I'll just quote myself from the previous page. Frankly, people like you are the people that need to see this documentary the most.

I saw it. I've quoted it in two threads.

Sorry but the things you're describing are not indicative of any systemic issues with men and some kind of inequality.

Men's rights activism has no reason to exist.

 

[HStallion]

I mean, but what about discussing the issues themselves? Whenever anyone even attempts to, it gets pushed back to "MRAs are cockroaches" - which isn't actually really relevant to those suffering because of the inequalities.

Can you see why this approach leads to people moving to different forums for discussion, more dangerous forums?

BECAUSE MRA'S DON'T CARE ABOUT MEN'S RIGHTS!!! I don't know how much more clear I can be about this. They are a narcassistic cult of man children who never really matured and just deal with their perceived problems in the shittiest manner possible. The reason no one ever talks about these things and MRA's in the same sentence is because they have nothing to do with one another. Bring up women and feminists? Then they won't shut the fuck up.

They're basically a hate group masquerading as a good cause. Stop giving them so much credit for something they have never been about.

 

[prepaidtacosalad]

BECAUSE MRA'S DON'T CARE ABOUT MEN'S RIGHTS!!! I don't know how much more clear I can be about this. They are a narcassistic cult of man children who never really matured and just deal with their perceived problems in the shittiest manner possible. The reason no one ever talks about these things and MRA's in the same sentence is because they have nothing to do with one another. Bring up women and feminists? Then they won't shut the fuck up.

They're basically a hate group masquerading as a good cause. Stop giving them so much credit for something they have never been about.

What would you call someone that does care and fight for mens rights?

 

[Fhtagn]

What would you call someone that does care and fight for mens rights?

See, this is a common mistake. There are plenty of women and men who care about issues that disproportionately affect men.

"Men's Rights Activitists" actually don't do much on those issues, because they are obsessed with defending rapists, stalkers and domestic abusers.

The self-assigned name of a group doesn't mean they actually have anything to do with that name.

 

[prepaidtacosalad]

See, this is a common mistake. There are plenty of women and men who care about issues that disproportionately affect men.

"Men's Rights Activitists" actually don't do much on those issues, because they are obsessed with defending rapists, stalkers and domestic abusers.

The self-assigned name of a group doesn't mean they actually have anything to do with that name.

So then there's no real way to self identify without being grouped in with the mass of pigs? I'm uneducated and genuinely interested.

 

[Sunster]

 

[Fhtagn]

So then there's no real way to self identify without being grouped in with the mass of pigs? I'm uneducated and genuinely interested.

The thing is that almost all issues that affect men disproportionately are actually side effects of patriarchy, capitalism, and toxic-masculinity (which despite many people's reading comprehension issues does not mean masculinity is toxic, it means there is a specific kind of exaggerated masculinity that is toxic and hurts men and women.)

So, feminist actually works, because feminists do actually care about prison rape, suicide, etc. I heard about these issues from feminists decades before MRAs were even a thing.

But, whatever term you want, you have to avoid using a name hijacked by propagandists who got there first, especially when they are extremists.

 

[Frozenprince]

Yeah they all look exactly how I picture people who would call themselves "meninists" in my head look.

 

[dantevsninjas]

and for the stopping conferences, pulling fire alarm and all - is actually filmed on "The Red Pill" documentary by Cassie Jaye, unfortunately.

Yeah, not going to put much stock in something called "The Red Pill" funded by Mike Cernovich.

At absolute best, they tracked down the craziest people they could find and then tried to bolster their arguement by having everyone act on their best behavior and pretend that the entire MRA movement wasn't fueled by misogyny, loneliness, and anger.

 

[benicillin]

What would you call someone that does care and fight for mens rights?

lol in personal experience?

Spoiler

a feminist

 

[Morrigan Stark]

What would you call someone that does care and fight for mens rights?

Feminists

 

[Dai101]

Yup. Exactly as i picture anyone that call himself a meninist or whatever.

 

[L Thammy]

What do you call someone who just wants to have a realistic view on race?

The thing with labels and groups is that you can always branch further, you can always specifically dissociate from the bad seeds. The Westboro Baptist Church is a Christian organization, but the majority of Christians would absolutely not consider themselves part of the Westboro Baptist Church. That's a good thing to do when you care about who you associate with.

Groups like Gamergate and MRAs some want to divide themselves up the same way. First, they don't actually have any problems being associated with horrible people. Second, they're afraid of being divided up because that might weaken their power.

Neo-Nazi groups are a good example of that latter thing. Neo-Nazis hate everyone, so naturally, they also hate each other. One of the best things keeping them down is their tendency to descend into infighting.

 

[Krombopulos_Michael]

The thing I am seeing alot on this thread is people using the terms "they" when describing these large groups made up of many individuals. How about instead of saying something like "all MRAs or anyone who talks about problems facing men are hateful bigots" or "all femists hate men" we instead talk about the actual ideas. There are quite a few legitimate problems facing men that this doc brings up that are worth discussing. Just becuase someone calls themself an MRA and has stupid ideas, doesn't mean we should ignore the the reasonable people who call themself MRA who want to talk about valid issues.

Things like suicide, gender roles, child custody, abuse, education, etc are all worth talking about. Ultimately its not men have all the advantages nor women have all the advantages. It varies depending on the issue. We need to reject radical ideology on both sides and focus on fixing problems facing society rather than just demonising people as a way to distract from real problems.

 

[Lois_Lane]

The thing I am seeing alot on this thread is people using the terms "they" when describing these large groups made up of many individuals. How about instead of saying something like "all MRAs or anyone who talks about problems facing men are hateful bigots" or "all femists hate men" we instead talk about the actual ideas. There are quite a few legitimate problems facing men that this doc brings up that are worth discussing. Just becuase someone calls themself an MRA and has stupid ideas, doesn't mean we should ignore the the reasonable people who call themself MRA who want to talk about valid issues.

Things like suicide, gender roles, child custody, abuse, education, etc are all worth talking about. Ultimately its not men have all the advantages nor women have all the advantages. It varies depending on the issue. We need to reject radical ideology on both sides and focus on fixing problems facing society rather than just demonising people as a way to distract from real problems.

Oh for the love of.. .

Feminists have been talking about this shit since the fucking third-wave started. Who do you think has been leading the charge to allow men to wear skirts, put on makeup, and other stereotypical western 'feminine' behaviors.

Name one thing the an open and avowed MRA organization has done. One! With a verifiable link.

 

[kyser73]

There are a large number of issues men need to deal with regarding patriarchy, violence, intentional legal bias in some jurisdictions over custody etc.

I'm also very specific about men needing to deal with this shit. In the same way it's up to white people to deal with our racism, men need to address a great many issues affecting us and the effect we have on others, and we need to do it ourselves.

MRA isn't the way to go about it.

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

The thing I am seeing alot on this thread is people using the terms "they" when describing these large groups made up of many individuals. How about instead of saying something like "all MRAs or anyone who talks about problems facing men are hateful bigots" or "all femists hate men" we instead talk about the actual ideas.

MRA ideas are demonstrably baseless, arrogant, delusional and based on an alternate reality. This is more of the "let's listen to both sides" shit. Let's listen to both sides of evolution. Let's listen to both sides of vaccines. Let's listen to
both sides of climate change. It's the same shit.

We know the "ideas" behind MRAs. They can be discounted because they're based on the same, bullshit, debunked arguments we've heard a million times.

 

[Fhtagn]

Just becuase someone calls themself an MRA and has stupid ideas, doesn't mean we should ignore the the reasonable people who call themself MRA who want to talk about valid issues.
.

Can you name a specific person who is reasonable and yet somehow is tonedeaf enough to call themself an MRA?

 

[lachesis]

Yeah, not going to put much stock in something called "The Red Pill" funded by Mike Cernovich.

At absolute best, they tracked down the craziest people they could find and then tried to bolster their arguement by having everyone act on their best behavior and pretend that the entire MRA movement wasn't fueled by misogyny, loneliness, and anger.

Even so, we shouldn't oppress others of speaking and expressing their opinion or political views. It's called 1st amendment. As much as I hate the far right rhetoric, I still don't think what they did was right. (And granted, the fire alarm thing was done in Canada, but not an isolated incident.)

 

[Krombopulos_Michael]

Oh for the love of.. .

Feminists have been talking about this shit since the fucking third-wave started. Who do you think has been leading the charge to allow men to wear skirts, put on makeup, and other stereotypical western 'feminine' behaviors.

Name one thing the an open and avowed MRA organization has done. One! With a verifiable link.

You are still thinking in a black and white, us and the "other" mentality. Im not saying feminists are good and MRA are bad or vice versa, im saying that making broad generalizations about groups such as these is stupid. For instance, some feminists believe in treating men and women as equals, while some feminists utterly reject the notion that men have any problems facing them in any situation.

People are trying to discredit the points brought up in thos doc as invalid because the people who bring them up are called MRAs. But as you said some feminists do consider the bias toward women in child custody cases a problem. Some MRAs also consider this a problem. So who cares what people call themselves, lets focus on the ideas. The conversation in this thread is dominated by feminist vs MRA arguments with people acting as if everyone who uses these labels all have the same beliefs. They dont, so lets focus on individual ideas because people on the two sides likely agree on many issues which they should work together to solve, and can disagree on certain other issues. Its not one label are the good guys and the other label are the bad guys.

 

[Fhtagn]

Even so, we shouldn't oppress others of speaking and expressing their opinion or political views. It's called 1st amendment. As much as I hate the far right rhetoric, I still don't think what they did was right. (And granted, the fire alarm thing was done in Canada, but not an isolated incident.)

The government pulled that fire alarm? The 1st amendment isn't relevant here.

 

[Fhtagn]

You are still thinking in a black and white, us and the "other" mentality. Im not saying feminists are good and MRA are bad or vice versa, im saying that making broad generalizations about groups such as these is stupid. For instance, some feminists believe in treating men and women as equals, while some feminists utterly reject the notion that men have any problems facing them in any situation.

People are trying to discredit the points brought up in thos doc as invalid because the people who bring them up are called MRAs. But as you said some feminists do consider the bias toward women in child custody cases a problem. Some MRAs also consider this a problem. So who cares what people call themselves, lets focus on the ideas. The conversation in this thread is dominated by feminist vs MRA arguments with people acting as if everyone who uses these labels all have the same beliefs. They dont, so lets focus on individual ideas because people on the two sides likely agree on many issues which they should work together to solve, and can disagree on certain other issues. Its not one label are the good guys and the other label are the bad guys.

THERE ARE NO GOOD MRAs.

Name a single one. Please. Stop being vague. Make a falsifiable claim. Show me this mythical MRA who isn't a rape apologist gamergater.


Edit: whoops, double post. Anyhow the point stands. You're making a huge both sides equal falalacy here where one is at minimum hundreds of millions of people with wide variety of specific opinions and the other is a tiny niche of hateful shitheads.

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

Just becuase someone calls themself an MRA and has stupid ideas, doesn't mean we should ignore the the reasonable people who call themself MRA who want to talk about valid issues.

What the FUCK. There are no "reasonable" MRAs.
By definition their views are unreasonable. Jesus Christ. Am I taking crazy pills???? What "valid issues" are you even referring to??

 

[Psychoward]

You are still thinking in a black and white, us and the "other" mentality. Im not saying feminists are good and MRA are bad or vice versa, im saying that making broad generalizations about groups such as these is stupid. For instance, some feminists believe in treating men and women as equals, while some feminists utterly reject the notion that men have any problems facing them in any situation.

People are trying to discredit the points brought up in thos doc as invalid because the people who bring them up are called MRAs. But as you said some feminists do consider the bias toward women in child custody cases a problem. Some MRAs also consider this a problem. So who cares what people call themselves, lets focus on the ideas. The conversation in this thread is dominated by feminist vs MRA arguments with people acting as if everyone who uses these labels all have the same beliefs. They dont, so lets focus on individual ideas because people on the two sides likely agree on many issues which they should work together to solve, and can disagree on certain other issues. Its not one label are the good guys and the other label are the bad guys.

Why are you tarnishing the name of Krombopulous Michael like that

 

[Dai101]

The thing I am seeing alot on this thread is people using the terms "they" when describing these large groups made up of many individuals. How about instead of saying something like "all MRAs or anyone who talks about problems facing men are hateful bigots" or "all femists hate men" we instead talk about the actual ideas. There are quite a few legitimate problems facing men that this doc brings up that are worth discussing. Just becuase someone calls themself an MRA and has stupid ideas, doesn't mean we should ignore the the reasonable people who call themself MRA who want to talk about valid issues.

Things like suicide, gender roles, child custody, abuse, education, etc are all worth talking about. Ultimately its not men have all the advantages nor women have all the advantages. It varies depending on the issue. We need to reject radical ideology on both sides and focus on fixing problems facing society rather than just demonising people as a way to distract from real problems.

Yeah. And i'm sure white nationalists have a point too in their beliefs.

FUCK OUTTA HERE

 

[Oersted]

MRAs will never be socially respected.

Patriarchy also creates male losers.

I hope this clears things up.

 

[L Thammy]

please stop falsely generalizing bigots
just because they're bigots doesn't mean they're bad

 

[Llyranor]

MRA propaganda luring in disillusioned men into believing their koolaid reminds me of ISIS using the injustice Muslims can face in some Western societies as a recruitment tool. Yeah, I just compared MRA propaganda to ISIS'.

 

[Isotropy]

Oh for the love of.. .

Feminists have been talking about this shit since the fucking third-wave started. Who do you think has been leading the charge to allow men to wear skirts, put on makeup, and other stereotypical western 'feminine' behaviors.

Uhmm.. trans women and drag queens? Yes they've made wonderful contributions, but I don't think it's really extended to custody/male suicide in the way that he's referring to (aside of course from LGBT suicide rates, which are also shocking).

 

[Staccat0]

I know plenty of ardent feminists who strongly support the more reasonable things MRAs want, and they have since before MRAs were a thing. I only became AWARE of these issues thanks to feminism. MRAs are, at best, contrarian goofs who are poorly informed about feminism that just so happen to associate with fucking monsters. The onus isn't really on women to take a break from asking for equality to engage people who refuse to listen.

 

[Fhtagn]

I know plenty of ardent feminists who strongly support the more reasonable things MRAs want, and they have since before MRAs were a thing. I only became AWARE of these issues thanks to feminism. MRAs are, at best, contrarian goofs who are poorly informed about feminism that just so happen to associate with fucking monsters. The onus isn't really on women to take a break from asking for equality to engage people who refuse to listen.

Yes, and much like the NRA looks the other way when black men doing everything exactly like you're supposed to when open carrying still get shot to death by cops, MRAs spend fuckall of their time doing anything productive about the issues they claim to care about.

 

[lachesis]

THERE ARE NO GOOD MRAs.

Name a single one. Please. Stop being vague. Make a falsifiable claim. Show me this mythical MRA who isn't a rape apologist gamergater.

Erin Pizzey, perhaps?

 

[Sunster]

Uhmm.. trans women and drag queens? Yes they've made wonderful contributions, but I don't think it's really extended to custody/male suicide in the way that he's referring to (aside of course from LGBT suicide rates, which are also shocking).

And what have MRA's done about those issues?

 

[Staccat0]

Yes, and much like the NRA looks the other way when black men doing everything exactly like you're supposed to when open carrying still get shot to death by cops, MRAs spend fuckall of their time doing anything productive about the issues they claim to care about.

Right. The bulk of their movement exists to complain about feminists and women complaining and saying "what about me!?"

If you want men to have a fairer treatment in custody battles? Guess what? So do plenty informed feminist activists.

Don't like the social expectations heaped upon men at work? Feminists have your back for sure.

It goes on and on.

 

[Fhtagn]

Erin Pizzey, perhaps?

Does Erin Pizzey explicitly claim the MRA label?

 

[lachesis]

Does Erin Pusey explicitly claim the MRA label?

Pretty much. She's on board with much hated AVFM / Honey Badger group. Not sure your spelling error on her name had any misogynistic intention, though - but will just fore go with that. Very interesting person, she is, to say the least.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Pretty much. She's on board with much hated AVFM / Honey Badger group. Not sure your spelling error on her name had any misogynistic intention, though - but will just fore go with that. Very interesting person, she is, to say the least.

So your defense of MRas is to point to someone who is on board with the literal worst of the MRAs...


Superb

Throughout the three-day event, the specter of feminism, or what British domestic-violence activist Erin Pizzey called ”the evil empire," loomed large, threatening to rip children from their fathers, lobby false rape accusations and remind men that in parenting, work and war they are forever disposable. (The movement includes a small fraction of women dedicated to the same mission.)
A palpable distaste for women seeped between the cracks of the conference, in comical asides and throwaway comments. When the conference's M.C., Robert O'Hara, asked a woman in the audience a question and she responded with a no, he quickly shot back ”Doesn't no mean yes?" The audience burst into laughter.

http://time.com/2949435/what-i-learned-as-a-woman-at-a-mens-rights-conference/

Ahh yes the rational MRA who goes to a conference full of crazies and calles feminism the evil empire.

 

[Isotropy]

And what have MRA's done about those issues?

Non-sequitur?

I believe his whole point was that it would be constructive to move away from fighting about labels and actually tackling those issues.