Jump to content
Galactic Turtle

MGTOW, Incels, PUA's, & MRA's

Recommended Posts

Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?)

Urgh that post had so many typos Y_Y I've fixed them now but anyone who read it should go back and re-read it because it makes more sense now. My brain wasn't communicating with my fingers very well as I typed 😕 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Charna

@Dreamsexual

I was talking about the connection between the sexism in the mainstream media and violent porn, not to particular groups. Sorry if that wasn't clear. The mainstream media will happily take advantage of the fact that the porn industry is pushing forward the image of sexual violence as entertainment. How many ads feature men and women in poses that are supposed to suggest sexual assault? Why? Because many people will not get horrified by it, but rather aroused. So how are we supposed to tell kids that sexist stereotypes are wrong, when they are being advertsed as fun, sexy, attractive? The lines are getting blurry. (and wasn't there a song about this?)

 

And yes, I am talking about the issue of perception here. I'm pretty sure I've read a few situations in my life the wrong way. But ultimately, fear isn't rational, that's the point. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
1 minute ago, Charna said:

How many ads feature men and women in poses that are supposed to suggest sexual assault? 

I really have no idea since I totally avoid all advertising.  The idea that sexual assault is used in mainstream advertising shocks me!  Can you provide some examples of this?  I'm speechless!

 

3 minutes ago, Charna said:

So how are we supposed to tell kids that sexist stereotypes are wrong,

I'm not sure of the connection here adverts using sexual assault and gender stereotypes?  I'm sorry, but your thoughts move to fast for me.  Also, I think the whole gender stereotype debate is likely somewhat separate from the debate about sexual violence.

 

4 minutes ago, Charna said:

The lines are getting blurry. (and wasn't there a song about this?)

You mean Blurred Lines by Robin Thicke?  I recall some controversy about that song, but tbh I never really understood what was wrong with it (my wife really likes that song).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StomachGod

@Charna Will probably be able to cover this better (and correct me) but I am going to take a stab at this anyway.

39 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

I really have no idea since I totally avoid all advertising.  The idea that sexual assault is used in mainstream advertising shocks me!  Can you provide some examples of this?  I'm speechless!

While I can't give an example of sexual assault being used directly in advertising. Nor can I provide direct examples.
I do recall there being plenty of adverts, like a beer advert that showed men checking out girls from up on a building site and catcalling them while drinking beer, and the girls were shown to enjoy this attention and the men were shown to be "cool". 
Or the one where there are guys drinking at a party and one of them slaps the butt of a woman who walks past, the men are then shown to be laughing and enjoying themselves over this action. (Yeah, that was a real beer advert here... I don't even...)
The other one that comes to mind was from a local company, they had a tv advert, I think they were mechanics?, they ended this add with a man and woman in certain poses such as when they faded the picture to a silhouette it looked like the woman was performing a sex act. The company then went on to use this silhouette on billboard ads they put up around the city... This one received a complaint to the advertising standards authority and was later forced to be taken down... but it still is an example of the mentality of what is okay.

50 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

I'm not sure of the connection here adverts using sexual assault and gender stereotypes?  I'm sorry, but your thoughts move to fast for me.  Also, I think the whole gender stereotype debate is likely somewhat separate from the debate about sexual violence.

The connection in all this is these adverts show the "roles" people supposedly exist in. They say: "Men are strong, woman weak.", "Men are dominant, woman submissive.", "Men treating woman as sexual objects is okay, woman must enjoy this.", "Men are aggressors, woman victims.", and more. With these standards being communicated every hour of every day, people learn that these things are okay. And that this is the way things should be. That is the connection. (I think)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Charna

@StomachGod

That is what I meant. I am not going to look for images, but you can find ads like a woman dressed in only underwear pushed down on the ground, while surrounded by men, etc. Of course it's all portrayed in a way that's supposed to be sexy, and I'm sure some do. 

 

Same with the song. The controversy was more about the video and the singer's attitude towards it. It's easy to find his interview just with googling:

https://www.gq.com/story/robin-thicke-interview-blurred-lines-music-video-collaborating-with-2-chainz-and-kendrick-lamar-mercy?verso=true

"We started acting like we were two old men on a porch hollering at girls like, "Hey, where you going, girl? Come over here!" That’s why, in the video, we’re doing all these old men dances. It was great."

 

I honestly find catcalling scary, but apprently for some it's great inspiration. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
6 hours ago, StomachGod said:

Or the one where there are guys drinking at a party and one of them slaps the butt of a woman who walks past,

This seems to be the only one of the examples that actually involves sexual assault.  At least as far as I understand sexual assault.  But that this advert exists is still troubling enough.  I would like to examine this advert, and I'll probably do a search on it.

 

6 hours ago, StomachGod said:

The connection in all this is these adverts show the "roles" people supposedly exist in. They say: "Men are strong, woman weak.",

Hmmm....  I'm not sure I interpret them that way.  It's hard to analyse them without seeing them.  We would need to pick apart a specific example, I think.  I don't mean to be dismissive, nor do I want to come across as some sort of 'bad advert apologist', but given how different people can see the same thing in different ways it strikes me as important to see how obvious the messages are in these ads.

 

2 hours ago, Charna said:

The controversy was more about the video and the singer's attitude towards it.

Ok, I'll check that out.  But to be clear, the song itself is ok, yes?  I find may works of art/entertainment/literature fine, whilst acknowledging that the attitudes of the maker might be wholly reprehensible (Wagner anyone?).  It's important to distinguish the art from the artist, I think.

 

2 hours ago, Charna said:

 

I honestly find catcalling scary,

Whilst I've never cat called, never will, (and never even witnessed it, tbh) and find it crude and obnoxious behaviour, I also don't see it as a form of sexual assault, and also note that there is at least some women whose attitude to it is not wholly negative.  Additionally, whilst it often (I assume) is the man catcalling the woman (likely a reflection of gender differences towards active/passive roles in dating, but I'm not really sure), I note that this isn't a gender exclusive problem (wasn't there a video of a male model walking round a city which demonstrated this?).

 

I'm unclear how all this ties together the media, sexual assault statistics, porn, cultural sexism, and Mgtow, though?  I think there may be multiple different conversations going on past each other here (typical Internet!) :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jusey1

I mostly only find MGTOW funny, personally, because I am flat-out against being and dating a women... Because I'm a homoromantic male who has a boyfriend already (Love him dearly <3).

 

Though I generally do support the MRA group, in a sense. Well kinda. I've said it before, I don't support any given group but rather be an Equalist myself. So, basically, I support ALL OF THE POSITIVE from every movement group out there as I believe everyone should be treated fairly, given equal chances, etc. This includes men, and yeah. I do believe that the Courtroom has a bias for women in a lot of situations. Some of it I understand since on average, a woman would be a better parent than a man ever would, due to their femininity (which is a very strong trait to have that is found in women more so than men, hence the name)... BUT The bias is still there and it's something that should be addressed, so I'm happy that there is a movement like MRA that addresses stuff like that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
1 hour ago, Jusey1 said:

I mostly only find MGTOW funny, personally, because I am flat-out against being and dating a women...

Yeah, that's a fair chunk of MGTOW :)

They tend to avoid what their 'natural' inclination would be/is because of political/personal reasons.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gisiebob
1 hour ago, Jusey1 said:

Because I'm a homoromantic male who has a boyfriend already (Love him dearly <3).

dude, this idol of not playing ball with the other gender, the one you don't even subscribe to yet fly high like it's some kind of virtue. this guy is laughing at you.

 

do you really think "going your own way" isn't an idea obessed with sexuality? the other side of a coin that mopes about how 'no one will think I am pretty'? these folk you say you back turn their back on an enemy gender, say they won't play at all if the chicks won't play fair. it's a pathetic image of the tables flipped on the bully and under the threat of love he declares that he just won't share. depriving his own self of the beauty of a relationship this quoted friend found fueling his everything.

 

if ya boys want to deprive yourselves, be my guest but don't include me in some sphere that conveniently also excludes the specter that the other side of your deviding line fears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
3 minutes ago, gisiebob said:

this guy is laughing at you

I'm still concerned that 'this guy' might refer to me.  Does it?  I would like to know.  Not least because I'm not laughing at anyone ...????

 

4 minutes ago, gisiebob said:

but don't include me in some sphere

Who is including you against your wishes in what???

 

I'm so confused :(

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StomachGod

I am confused, is @gisiebob suggesting that being homoromantic is being anti-women? and somehow pathetic?
I don't really understand his latest post but this is all I can seem to get from it?
 

33 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

I'm still concerned that 'this guy' might refer to me.  Does it?  I would like to know.  Not least because I'm not laughing at anyone ...????

I think gisiebob was referring to himself? 
When I read it that seems to be the only possibility to make his entire post consistent.
However I now suspect when he said it was a "challenge" in an earlier post he meant he writes like that on purpose.
I'm guessing it's a method to try and win arguments by confusing and frustrating one's opponent, instead of using clear lines of reasoning.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StomachGod
3 hours ago, Dreamsexual said:

This seems to be the only one of the examples that actually involves sexual assault.  At least as far as I understand sexual assault.  But that this advert exists is still troubling enough.  I would like to examine this advert, and I'll probably do a search on it.

I did say there wasn't much "direct" sexual assault, tho that one does count. The catcalling is a bit more grey area but still not appropriate in my books.

 

3 hours ago, Dreamsexual said:

Hmmm....  I'm not sure I interpret them that way.  It's hard to analyse them without seeing them.  We would need to pick apart a specific example, I think.  I don't mean to be dismissive, nor do I want to come across as some sort of 'bad advert apologist', but given how different people can see the same thing in different ways it strikes me as important to see how obvious the messages are in these ads.

Of course everyone will have their own views on what messages are sent. But I think that showing these repetitive messages that women are sex objects and men the rightful owners fuels a mentality that it is okay to do these things if you are a guy. (Note: this sounds super extreme when I say it like that but I personally think it is a subtle effect, and one of many working together to create the social culture that are being talked about here.) How any of this really relates to the groups this thread is supposed to be about? Well I think if you see the social culture being promoted, it's links to incels should be fairly clear, the other groups I am not so familiar with, so I cannot say.

(I don't think you are being an apologist for bad adverts, of course it is important to consider other views and more importantly, to have multiple views examine the data to get a clearer picture)

(p.s. I hope this is clearer? I am kind of finding it hard to find the right words I think, and obviously it is no failing on you if I cannot communicate my point properly)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Charna

Sorry everyone, but I'll have to take a break from the discussion. I'm travelling and posting from my phone, and I've had my post end up in the wrong thread twice already. Idk what's happening, but considering the subject, I wouldn't want to accidentally trigger someone who is looking at a completely different thread and was not expecting it.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
10 minutes ago, Charna said:

Sorry everyone

No need to apologise, totally understood :)  Technology can be annoying :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tercy

@Ficto. Just to clarify something that may have been misunderstood from the start: My intention was never to downplay the incidence of sexual assault against women, but that the emphasis placed specifically on women's issues (including safety) does lend weight to the idea that women are "coddled."

 

But I do take issue with some of the things you've now put on the table.

 

14 hours ago, Ficto. said:

There's still no denying the fact that women are overwhelmingly the victims of sexual attacks and sexual violence

 

14 hours ago, Ficto. said:

there is an issue in society as a whole of sexual violence against women specifically

 

I would say this paints an inaccurate picture. Sexual assault statistics for women vary and there's debate over their accuracy, but let's go with the 1/4 or 1/5 estimates. Sexual assault statistics for men can range between 1/6 and 1/25. How exactly does this overwhelmingly affect women or affect women specifically? :p

 

And I still don't want us to fall into the trap here of thinking that it's sufficient to take an example of something that affects women in some way, looking at if/how men are affected by the same thing and then concluding either that women have a bigger problem or only women have a problem. It's not secret knowledge that the negative aspects of men and women manifest in different ways - so if you're looking for the exact same desires or behaviours in men/women, you often won't find them; you need to look elsewhere. As a general rule, "male aggression" is usually overt and involves things like shouting and physical violence, whereas "female aggression" is usually subtle and involves things like ostracisation, gossip/rumours, manipulation, etc.

 

Your example of harassment might be a good case study here. I get the impression your narrative is that you're uniquely attacked or disadvantaged "as a woman" because people make sexual comments in public and you receive sexually explicit PMs and such - because those things either don't happen to men or don't happen so often. Again, not only are men attacked and violated in these ways (even if less common), men are attacked and violated in other ways. Just from my own personal experience, I could list off countless examples of things people have said and done to me, online and off - and some do include (sexual) harassment (by women).

 

I should probably also point out that we know most sexual assaults are committed by people known to the victim, often at home or at a party and such - so take this into account when considering the weight of the threat of sexual assault outdoors.

 

(I feel like I need another paragraph here to tie this all up, but I'm on a deadline at work so I'll have to try again later.)

 

One last thing that piqued my interest:

 

14 hours ago, Ficto. said:

there is an issue of 'generally accepted' sexual violence against women

 

Could you give some examples of what you mean? I have never got the impression that any significant number of people are cool with a bit of casual sexual violence against women - so I'm curious to see what I might have missed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
33 minutes ago, Tercy said:

How exactly does this overwhelmingly affect women or affect women specifically? :p

I still think the stats would need to be analysed carefully, especially in an era of ideologically weaponized 'alternative facts' :(  For example, I came across one stat that there were actually more men raped than women in the USA if one included prison populations (and defined rape in a particular way).  Is that statistic true?  Dunno.  I'm not sure bandying about a statement like, 'more men are raped than women,' though, would either be fair or accurate.  Statistics are awkward and complex, and there use should be carefully considered, IMHO.

 

36 minutes ago, Tercy said:

As a general rule, "male aggression" is usually overt and involves things like shouting and physical violence, whereas "female aggression" is usually subtle and involves things like ostracisation, gossip/rumours, manipulation, etc.

Again there's a whole complex issue as to sociological/psychological research and its validity here.  I've come across multiple commentators referring to and citing research indicating that women were as comparably aggressive as men, but expressed such aggression differently.  How should such research be treated?  Is aggression the same as violence?  What if a minor act of physical violence is comparatively less harmful than slander, say, which could destroy someone's family, livelihood and reputation?  These things are so complex it makes my head hurt :(

 

39 minutes ago, Tercy said:

I get the impression your narrative is that you're uniquely attacked or disadvantaged "as a woman" because people make sexual comments in public and you receive sexually explicit PMs and such - because those things either don't happen to men or don't happen so often.

Again, there's research here that problematizes everything.  For example, I came across some studies indicating that a lot of online sexist verbal abuse directed at women actually came from women.  How do fit that into the picture?  Etc etc. 

 

My key point with all the above is simply, 'It's highly complicated.  We should be very careful in forming narratives, whatever side we're on, even when using statistics and studies, let alone anecdotal evidence.'

 

42 minutes ago, Tercy said:

I have never got the impression that any significant number of people are cool with a bit of casual sexual violence against women

Hmmmm...  I too am interested in this.  But I doubt that ficto was saying that the general population was 'ok' with RL serious/obvious sexual assault, perhaps more that many people were unconcerned with fictional portrayals of assault that might feed into a paradigm wherein real life assault become more likely.  But maybe I've misunderstood her post?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Dryad

A lot of groups like these exist today, most because of miseducation in the classroom and social disconnect.

 

If a teacher tells you "everyone is equal", aren't you going to take her word for it as a child if you have no example to argue with?

 

If you have privilege, and surround yourself with "your peers" you won't see and won't know the history of disenfranchised people and know how disenfranchised they still are if you're not studied on them.

 

Another thing is- the internet gives you whatever you're looking for, and sometimes it's wired to suppress information as well, so anything could be a "resource" for an argument no matter how truly legitimate it is.

 

Society is breaking down, so it's not a surprise to see ignorance and misinformation rearing it's ugly head, especially with men (especially white, straight, cis, Christian men) feeling like they're under attack for the social structures they built are crumbling all around them as fast as they can try to salvage what's left of the patriarchal system, oh wait.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
8 minutes ago, The Dryad said:

Society is breaking down, so it's not a surprise to see ignorance and misinformation rearing it's ugly head, especially with men (especially white, straight, cis, Christian men) feeling like they're under attack for the social structures they built are crumbling all around them as fast as they can try to salvage what's left of the patriarchal system, 

Be careful, this almost sounds like you are saying that 'social structures' (what is that exactly?) were built entirely by white, straight, cis, Christian men :)  I guess that's not what you intended, though. :)

 

10 minutes ago, The Dryad said:

miseducation in the classroom

What miseducation do you think is happening in American, Australian, European classrooms that leads to mgtow?  I admit that this remark has caught me off-guard, I hadn't really considered a link between school education and mgtow before. 

 

11 minutes ago, The Dryad said:

Society is breaking down

In what way?  I'm curious as to what you're referring to here.  In some ways I might well agree with you, but I'd like clarification if possible :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chimeric

@Charna  I think I'm doing an absolutely terrible job of communicating myself, because it seems like we agree on most things, so until I can figure out how best to say what I mean, I'm going to bow out of our conversation. I hope I didn't upset you.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gisiebob
5 hours ago, StomachGod said:

when he said it was a "challenge" in an earlier post he meant he writes like that on purpose.
I'm guessing it's a method to try and win arguments by confusing and frustrating one's opponent, instead of using clear lines of reasoning.

I wouldn't say on purpose. overriding my own logic that says I've got no buisness getting my hands dirty with someone else's mess. let my demons call me better if I can watch a trainwreck. no, I wouldn't say that's victory, making waters muddy. the logical short circuit is that in the light of my own future failure I can at least claim that no one else made the effort.

 

I'll give you this one, I know out here a quote is something you single out to respond to, but the quote I took was the missed punch line of a joke, taken out of context to afirm a cult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
13 minutes ago, Chimeric said:

I think I'm doing an absolutely terrible job of communicating myself, because it seems like we agree on most things, so until I can figure out how best to say what I mean, I'm going to bow out of our conversation. I hope I didn't upset you.

I don't think you've done a terrible job.  I have found your posts informative, mostly well expressed, an useful. :) No one has been perfect here, and the internet makes clear communication incredibly difficult.

 

This is a difficult, complex and emotive set of issues being raised on this thread, everyone's doing a pretty good job at keeping a cool head, imho.

 

I think stepping away is probably a good move for many of us.  I too might step away very soon to process what has already been said.  Already we have issues, different opinions, statistics, and case studies to investigate further - it seems wise at this stage to go and think for a bit. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evil
18 hours ago, Ficto. said:

My brain wasn't communicating with my fingers very well as I typed

This is the exact story of how I once prescribed a 92-year-old woman Viagra. At least she had no issues getting up in the morning.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chimeric
5 minutes ago, Evil said:

This is the exact story of how I once prescribed a 92-year-old woman Viagra. At least she had no issues getting up in the morning.

Oh my god I spat out my coffee actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jusey1
14 hours ago, The Dryad said:

"privilege," "patriarchal system,"

This stuff doesn't exist at all. No one has 'privilege' because of their race, religion, or other means. No one. At least not in the way that you are believing, especially with this patriarchy belief that just doesn't exists...

Because, here's the truth. The world, the Government, Society... Everything. It doesn't run on a specific race, or a religion... Nothing. No. None of that stuff matters to the true evils of our society. The truth is that society that we live in right now is run by money. Gold. Green paper. Whatever form of currency you use, this is generally what society is run by. Because we live in a world where money can buy you basically everything except for family and love. Money even can buy power.

The reason why we might be having a crumbling society isn't because we're fighting against the "Christian white cis males" blah blah blah whatever the "White Devil" is known as now-a-days... Our toxic problem in society is happening because people are becoming too extreme and too stupid. They're blindly following anyone within their party, or believe anything that is said on the media without thinking twice about it. Without thinking that maybe they are lying for views, for money, and potentially power (since money can be used to fund and buy politicians).

We live in a society where the most important people are using us and are using the method of divide and conquer to gain control. It's a method that's been done successfully before to some degree by a lot of terrible leaders in the past, and it is a method that succeeds at destroying a country. Believing in this toxic crap and getting mad at other people because they're the "White Devil" (not gonna bother listing everything) just proves how successful it is becoming.

We, the people, should never fight each other but always fight and question those whom are in power. We should never be mad because someone fits a specific definition, or because someone has a different opinion. Because we civilians are not the true enemy. This unnecessary bickering and fighting is why the "White Devils" are fighting back like they are being attacked, because it is true. People are attacking each other due to just simple differences or strong "moral beliefs" that essentially doesn't matter.

Cause, here's the big kicker... Everyone has problems and disagreements with each other. We are not perfect creatures. Far from it. Everyone has their own opinions, their own beliefs, and their own struggles with life, even the rich and famous people have problems. No one has any kind of privilege or no specific group is truly in power. What is in power are people who wants to stay in power, stay rich, and stay up high above all else due to that money and power. It has nothing to do with their race. No patriarchy. No privileges... Nothing like that. Just people who knows how to exploit the system and does so to their advantage...

Actually, I feel like I'm rambling at this point so I'll stop my post here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Dryad
14 hours ago, Jusey1 said:

Because, here's the truth. The world, the Government, Society... Everything. It doesn't run on a specific race, or a religion... Nothing. No. None of that stuff matters to the true evils of our society. The truth is that society that we live in right now is run by money. Gold. Green paper. Whatever form of currency you use, this is generally what society is run by. Because we live in a world where money can buy you basically everything except for family and love. Money even can buy power.

.... that's like saying European imperalism didn't effectively take over the world with it's ideas of white superiority and exceptionality... that's also like saying that imperalism isn't the root cause of most of current wealth inequality in the world right now- why do you think Europeans and their descendents are the world's most wealthy, it might've been because they effectively "divided and conquered" the rest of the world into falling into their power.

 

The very ideas of imperalism were built upon gold, God, and glory.

 

Yes it's true that our society is ruled by money...but who holds the majority of that money? 

 

Because the world is changing and the people who have held power for so long are in danger of losing it (white cis Christian men) you see the backlash that's around today, why do you think echoes of white supremacists are in the crowds of Trump supporters? It is because of money, but mostly because they feel that they are exceptional- that's why Steve King felt so comfortable asking "what's wrong with white nationalism" and why he feels that white history along has had more impact on the world than any other race. I would be a fool to think that power alone came from wealth when you heard the same rhetoric from poor white people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
25 minutes ago, The Dryad said:

Because the world is changing and the people who have held power for so long are in danger of losing it (white cis Christian men) you see the backlash that's around today

Interesting take on things.  But how does this relate to Mgtow???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Dryad
44 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

Interesting take on things.  But how does this relate to Mgtow???

Ah, it's related as a kind of backlash against women as MGTOW and even men's rights, although some men's rights issues are real and are addressed in feminism, some men's rights groups seem to be as hateful as second wave feminists- as you can see with "not taking relationships seriously, no babies, etc."

 

As a reaction towards the breakdown of the mostly white patriarchy system (which I explained once and above, further in history) groups like these have popped up over time. 

 

But you can see this rhetoric in alt-Right attitudes who also argue some/most of the things I listed above. From what I've seen and heard anyways, it's rooted in a societal power struggle.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual

A number of points you raise confuse me, Dryad (cool name, btw).  Do you mind if I ask some questions?

 

58 minutes ago, The Dryad said:

a kind of backlash against women

Do you mean a backlash against third+ wave feminism, or do you actually mean women qua women?  

 

Because I don't see how it's possible to have a 'backlash' against something that has 'always' been there (ie women).  I must assume you mean a backlash against women (all of them?) doing something.  In which case, what?  What is it that women (as a collective) are doing that is provoking this backlash reaction?

 

58 minutes ago, The Dryad said:

although some men's rights issues are real and are addressed in feminism,

This suggests two things: a) that not all men's rights issue are 'real', and b) that all of those that are real are addressed within feminism, thus removing the need for MRAism contra their own claims.  Could you provide more detail on a) and b), please - I'm sure you're aware that these comments could sound very dismissive of men's rights issues if not clarified.

 

58 minutes ago, The Dryad said:

not taking relationships seriously, no babies

Whilst I certainly agree that hateful rhetoric can be found within the manosphere easily enough, I'm confused by the examples you provided.  How is 'not taking relationships seriously' or 'not wanting babies' evidence of hate speech or hateful attitudes?

 

Also, did you mean to specifically say MRA groups are hateful, or were you referencing other manosphere groups (like incels or mgtows or PUAs)?  I ask because the MRAs I've come across (a fair few being women) seem the least hateful and most measured of the various manosphere groups.

 

58 minutes ago, The Dryad said:

As a reaction towards the breakdown of the mostly white patriarchy system

Even if I grant that such a thing as white patriarchy currently exists, and is indeed breaking down, I'm confused as to how MGTOW is a reaction to it.  I could possibly see the argument relating to, perhaps, Mgtow being a reaction to a loss of patriarchy, but I really cannot see how it is a reaction to a loss of specifically 'white' patriarchy, especially given the large non-white demographic within mgtow.  Can you justify how Mgtow is a backlash against the destruction of 'white' patriarchy?

 

58 minutes ago, The Dryad said:

you can see this rhetoric in alt-Right attitudes 

Are you saying that there is a connection between the alt-Right and MGTOW?  If so, I have to ask you to define alt-right for me, since it can be/has been used in many different ways, and I need to be careful as to exactly what I'm agreeing/disagreeing with here.

Edited by Dreamsexual

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Dryad
2 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

Do you mean a backlash against third+ wave feminism, or do you actually mean women qua women?  

 

Because I don't see how it's possible to have a 'backlash' against something that has 'always' been there (ie women).  I must assume you mean a backlash against women (all of them?) doing something.  In which case, what?  What is it that women (as a collective) are doing that is provoking this backlash reaction?

As in, a backlash against women, the attitudes displayed in both second and third wave feminism are ones that birthed movements like MGTOW, similar to the way some view feminism as a backlash against men.

5 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

a) that not all men's rights issue are 'real', and b) that all of those that are real are addressed within feminism, thus removing the need for MRAism contra their own claims.  Could you provide more detail on a) and b), please - I'm sure you're aware that these comments could sound very dismissive of men's rights issues if not clarified.

 

1 hour ago, The Dryad said:

not taking relationships seriously, no babies

Whilst I certainly agree that hateful rhetoric can be found within the manosphere easily enough, I'm confused by the examples you provided.  How is 'not taking relationships seriously' or 'not wanting babies' evidence of hate speech or hateful attitudes?

 

Also, did you mean to specifically say MRA groups are hateful, or were you referencing other manosphere groups (like incels or mgtows or PUAs)?  I ask because the MRAs I've come across (a fair few being women) seem the least hateful and most measured of the various manosphere groups.

 

1 hour ago, The Dryad said:

As a reaction towards the breakdown of the mostly white patriarchy system

Even if I grant that such a thing as white patriarchy currently exists, and is indeed breaking down, I'm confused as to how MGTOW is a reaction to it.  I could possibly see the argument relating to, perhaps, Mgtow being a reaction to a loss of patriarchy, but I really cannot see who it is a reaction to a loss of specifically 'white' patriarchy, especially given the large non-white demographic within mgtow.  Can you justify how Mgtow is a backlash against the destruction of 'white' patriarchy?

Yes some men's rights issues are real in the sense that if a group in power (historically and figuratively)- politically, socially, etc. view themselves as "being bullied" or having their power taken away or even view themselves as being portrayed as 'the monsters', then it creates a backlash for the opposition of this group. From what I've read, the very creation of the majority of these groups are somewhat spiteful of feminism- because it is feminism (rather than egalitarianism, similar to how people view All Lives Matter vs Black Lives Matter). I don't mean to sound cold and dismissive of men's rights, because there are social issues that are ignored because of gender roles, however I ,personally, find white a lot of the "issues" are rooted in opposing feminism, which is problematic because these men don't recognize their own privilege in society.

 

 

I was actually referring to MGTOW rather then actual MR for clarification; not having relationships/not having babies isn't necessarily toxic in itself ( of course, this is an asexual forum) but it seems that these men think that being married means a sacrifice to their manhood, hence the being tied down/lease memes, rather than the ideas of the 50s where men asserted dominance in relationships.

 

I know it seems strange that white male privilege came up- but I have heard heard rhetoric similar to MGTOW and other groups talked around alt-Right groups before, even though I don't think it's popular in the Klan or anything like that. Another reason I said "white male privilege" is because that's the standard that we base privilege off of, but you find other demographics in MGTOW because men, in general, are disgruntled about "being disenfranchised because they're men", finding that's it's easier to live without women than with them, because of the ongoing power struggle (hence feminism vs men's groups, "who's more privileged than who" struggle through toxic feminism)

 

(Note* I'm really not the best person to talk about controversial groups like these, but I couldn't help but list some parallels I see in power struggles going on and in history. Sorry if this doesn't explain properly.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual

Thanks for the further details, Dryad.  :).  I can't say I really understand everything you're saying, and I suspect we're coming from quite different perspectives, but I appreciate the effort to help me understand your POV. :)

 

One thing in your post really caught my attention:

19 minutes ago, The Dryad said:

men, in general, are disgruntled about "being disenfranchised because they're men", finding that's it's easier to live without women than with them, because of the ongoing power struggle

To be clear, you're saying that men now find it easier to live without wives/female partners because of the gender power struggle, yes?  That sounds very much like a Mgtow statement! :)  Many Mgtow make statements roughly equivalent to 'it's easier to live alone than with a woman,' and you seem here to be agreeing with them.

 

Do you see this inability of men and women to live peacefully together as a negative thing?  Why?

Do you see it likely changing in the future?  Into what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...