Hacker News Reader

Comment by lambda | Hacker News Reader

I wouldn't say that HN "is" a bunch of MRA losers; HN is a big place, and there are a lot of different types of people on it.

But there are a bunch of MRA losers on HN. How many, it's hard to tell; maybe a few that are very vocal, maybe a few with many sockpuppets, maybe a lot. If you ever get involved in a thread about any issue about women in technology, programs for encouraging women in technology, or the like, you will see them come out of the woodwork (and such threads will frequently drop off the front page as the long comment threads trigger HN's algorithm that try to discourage flamewar topics).

View on HN

What's an "MRA loser"?

"MRA is short for Men's Rights Activist. MRAs argue that, as human beings, men should have human rights, due process in legal matters, and should not be subject to "reverse discrimination" in favor of other groups.

MRAs typically point to men's lower life expectancy in almost every country, higher rates of incarceration, more severe penalties for similar offenses, lower rates of health care spending and health research spending on men, higher suicide rates, higher rates of being subject to violence and murder including by women and when they are children, higher rates of genital mutilation, liability to conscription, higher rates of death at work, various disadvantages in divorce and child support, and higher school and college dropout rates, as reasons why men's rights should be on the agenda."

A lot of people feel that since men are privileged in so many areas, no effort should be expended on men's issues until every women's problem is entirely resolved. Due to that scapegoating Men's Rights Activists as people who hate women is popular.

So how does any of that make you a loser? What's going on in this thread? As far as I can tell it's nothing more than a similar type of bullying the article is itself is talking about, which I didn't ever expect to see on HN, let alone tolerated.

At what point can you no longer express controversial opinions without being called a loser?

On the Internet, someone is already calling you a loser, possibly without your knowledge. It's best to worry more about the folks who have greater power to destroy your social standing than just simple name-calling.

And to provide a sentinel value for the previous search space, I'll just say it. You, and everyone else who may be wondering if someone on the network is calling them a loser, are all losers.

Now that's taken care of, and you can go about your business, expressing controversial opinions without worrying about incurring greater harm to yourself than has already occurred.

The reason you'll get banned for such behavior, and the whole reason why such behavior is against the rules, is because personal attacks are counterproductive to logical discussions. When HN degenerates into a group of people who go around calling other groups of people losers, that does not bode well.

It was, I admit, somewhat of an obscure joke. I realized, after my first sentence, that I couldn't be certain that it was true. So I added a sentinel value.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_in_Cairo

Don't despair. Being called a loser does not make you one.

Ah, I see. Sorry about that.

>As far as I can tell it's nothing more than a similar type of bullying

It absolutely is. "MRA" is a short cut to dismiss an entire spectrum of arguments and perspectives. Just as farcical, but on the opposite side, are people who declare anyone who has a problem with something like, say, "GamerGate", a "SJW".

These are shorthand for idiots. It lets you pretend that you're in a tribe and everything is black and white.

It doesn't make MRA losers. If it did there would be no reason to tack the word loser on. Being an mean, agressive alcoholic bum implies being a loser so you don't often see loser tacked on.

I am an advocate for men's rights for many of the reasons you cite, but I also acknowledge that there really are people who adopt the MRA label who are bitterly misogynist nutjobs who have no interest in a more just and equal society, but are rather the flip-side of those misandric feminists who believe--amongst other things--that "rape is nothing less than a conscious conspiracy by all men against all women" (likely not an exact quote as it's from memory, but Brownmiller says something with the same meaning.)

The problem is that misogynist MRAs disrupt the possibility of positive change the same way misandric feminists like Brownmiller and McKinnon do. Because they share a label with sane people, they allow the enemies of sanity to mount a trivially plausible ad hominem against any proposal to genuinely address the real injustices that men and women face due to the simple fact of being a man or a woman.

The undisputed face of the MRM is Paul Elam who runs the hugely popular "A Voice for Men" website. He is a great example of a bitter misogynist MRA asshole: http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2013/10/18/paul-elam-of-a-voic...

There are lots of good reasons to talk about issues affecting men, but sadly the bad parts of the MRM far outweigh the good at this point. I'd say it's 85% bashing feminism, complaining about women's sexual power (e.g. The Friendzone), denying and minimizing rape as a social problem, etc. and only 15% talking about fathers' custody rights and boys' education issues.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com