I don't understand this. In most stories, arn't protagonists primarily male? Arn't they typically courageous, or intelligent, or unyielding, or strong, or determined?
I don't understand.
I don't understand.
And so on.
I wish we look at problems without the gender/race/nationality etc lens and only purely based on their merit. This is 2015 and we still have gender stereotypes, whole lot of double standards (for both genders), laws favoring one gender or the other etc. All this noise is just tiring.
Because MRA has an absolutely horrific public image. If they concentrated on topics like visitation rights in divorce they'd be well appreciated - Fathers 4 Justice[1] is/was an organsiation that does exactly that and received positive coverage back in the mid-2000s (sadly, according to Wikipedia they've since gotten worse)
By contrast, almost every MRA conversation I've ever seen has been talking about how awful Feminists are. Using "Social justice warrior" to cover anyone who is passionate about helping women do anything (and why is it a negative label anyway?). About fake rape accusations as if they cast doubt over every legitimate accusation ever made. About how scantily clad women are 'asking for it'.
Is it really any wonder MRA isn't "cool"? (and let's be honest - Feminism isn't exactly universally cool anyway)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muuFygvXPAM
Imagine this "witty banter" about female mutilation.
"I now no longer present my satirical works without making it clear that they are not serious, as many people have been unable to recognize that fact on their own, despite the over-the-top and theatrical style of said presentations."
The extreme voices of feminism are pretty awful, but AFAICT the entire MRA movement is made up of arseholes.
It doesn't have to be, and there are issues to be addressed. It's just a shame it seems to be addressed by misogynist dickholes.
We have managed to figure out how to land on the moon and yet we can't figure out how to weigh certain issues on their merit, and merit only.
It's just language....
To put it another way - it's easy to see that a mens rights movement could exist that actually pushes for mens rights. All we seem to have now is a group of reactionaries that like to rant about the evils of women and feminism, and espouse some (IMHO) horrific views about women and their place in the world. They also see mens rights as a fight against feminism in a sort of tug-of-war where no fight needs to exists - gender roles and inequalities could be fought together.
I think calling them misogynist dickholes just about covered it though, because that is the way they generally come across.
I have no problem with the "actual issue" of discussing ways in which men are treated unfairly by society. I have a huge problem with the people who have taken it upon themselves to stand up and be called "mens rights activists" and then proceed to rail against women's rights and women's rights activists as if they are the enemy.
That's cultural hegemony at work, folks.
People frequently do!
The difference is that they don't make up the whole of that movement.
Do they?
HackerNews search results:
* "Misandry": 2
* "Misandrist": 0
* "Misogyny": 59
* "Misogynist": 23
Most people will have to look up "the opposite of misogyny" to find "misandry", and that's telling in itself. I do understand why this happens (misogyny has always been a culturally-recognized problem with real repercussions, the opposite not so much), but it still happens and it does unbalance the cultural perception of things.
I'm pretty sure that this statement makes you a misandrist. FYI, MRM does not include actually PUA and MGTOW. Different goals.
You'd be wrong then.
Misandry would be the hating or disparaging of men as a group, not the hating or disparaging of the MRA movement as it exists right now.
As a man, I do not identify with MRA and neither am I offended if someone criticises them, it is not misandry to do so. As I said - I can see that there could be a mens rights movement that addressed mens issues without resorting to being misogynist and anti-feminist. I do not think this exists in the MRA sphere at present. I do not think feminism (in its more mainstream forms) is the enemy, either, in fact it should be a natural ally.
I'll concede that a lot of outspoken feminists often try to intentionally confuse this issue as well, painting anyone who disagrees with any facet of feminism, no matter how extreme, as being misogynist.
Have you heard what feminists say about legal parental surrender, military draft, circumcision, false accusations etc? Dodging the issue, invoking "it's patriarchy", FGM straw man and so on. With variations of "XYZ can't be fixed because its biology" or "add more feminism".
You are right on one thing. Traditionalist women are actually much worse than feminists when it comes to MR. Unfortunately feminists cater to this particular "electorate" and because of that feminists are not allies of MRM (outside of /r/FeMRADebates).
No, I'm not, in fact I'm explicitly and deliberately not doing that, as I said here -
"I'll concede that a lot of outspoken feminists often try to intentionally confuse this issue as well, painting anyone who disagrees with any facet of feminism, no matter how extreme, as being misogynist."
>> Feminism can't be natural ally of mens' rights because it is actively pushing against it.
I disagree.
--edit-- In fact I disagree entirely, there's no reason at all that a mens rights movement could not exist to push the issues you call out, and work alongside a feminist movement working on feminist issues. Women campaigning for greater access to the workplace, and against street harassment, are not in opposition to men wanting greater access to their children. This is what I mean by natural allies.
The idea that they are necessarily in opposition is childish.
> Women campaigning for greater access to the workplace, and against street harassment, are not in opposition to men wanting greater access to their children. This is what I mean by natural allies.
In theory. But in practice they are. Please read the link I provided.
I really hope that you are right and both movements can actually come and act together. Equal Rights Amendment was a beautiful thing, shame it died.
As for now we have rape-on-campus (not supported by statistical data) moral panic instead.
Fat chance, humans being what they are...
(Yeah, I'm a closet misanthrope!)
But everything else she said was extremely misandrist and sexist.
"Single men become a rare commodity later in life due to our unfortunate propensity for dying. If you can get to 50 the world seems to be nothing but women."
Without wanting to turn this into a race thing, there are sociological circumstances which sort of give us a glimpse (in subsets of the population) of what that could look like - and it's not pretty... See e.g. http://www.economist.com/node/21532296, which is one of the lesser emotionally charged discussions of it, but I'm sure you can find the right Google terms to find dozens of other articles about it yourself.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/china/2011/05/13/chinas-growing-...
"More boys are born in Sweden, the average life expectancy of males has gone up and it's mostly men who move here from other countries." http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&art...
The formula is a charming yet incompetent male lead who's mainly driven by sex, paired with a strong, capable female lead who's always two steps ahead of him.
If I had children, I certainly wouldn't want them watching TV/movies that depict their gender as incapable or unintelligent. And that's equally true for girls and boys.
For example, switch around the person who embodies the bumbling figure and in most cases it would be frowned upon or not effective.
It's possibly a power thing. Maybe it's ok and fun (not right) to poke fun at those perceived with the most social power. In most other situations, it's like kicking someone when they're down. I didn't say I agreed with this, just that it might explain why it is more "acceptable" at the moment.
Above everything though, I do find this set up incredibly boring. It was funny the first couple of times but it's been done ad nauseum now. Ad agencies and comedy writers, please up your game.
As a 30-something guy the main issue I had with Avengers 2 (just to pick the latest mainstream action movie example) was the blatant product placement which had no logic (like driving an Audi convertible in the midst of a gunfight scene). Plus, there was too much talking, I almost felt asleep mid-way through the movie. I'm not a comic-books aficionado, so I didn't particularly care about any of the characters, I just wanted some good action.
Compare that with "Predator" or the "Rocky" or "Rambo" series. Lots of good action, lots of "this is damn cool!" feeling without much thinking or non-sense talking. And "Last Action Hero", the movie, was indeed genius, like its director, John McTiernan.
Beats headphones are overpriced, over-bassed crap with a gross form factor and uncomfortable cups to boot. This is said by anyone with any kind of taste for finer audio.
The John McClanes of this world, if in fact they exist at all, are exceptionally few and far between. Good competent fathers though? Those are hardly Hollywood inventions.
What Bruce Willis brings to the table is this idealized version of what "man" is supposed to mean. So, on the one hand, we have an image of men as socially retarded incompetents and on the other hand, we have an image of men as unkillable tough guys. Where is a 15 year old supposed to land in there?
1. I actually really enjoyed the first five or so seasons of BBT, before they started playing more and more to the cheap "socially retarded scientists" jokes. I also believe they aren't making lives better for intellectual young women, either, who need the role models more than anyone.
Of course, they have to be, it's a modern sitcom. The most attractive one is also only a waitress/failed aspiring actress.
Because when I've seen men get emascualated or mocked on TV, it's due to some jackassery on their part, and I don't feel the need to empathize. Isn't that true for you as well?
If there's an over-riding theme in media regarding men that I would report, it's that the consequences they experience are a result of their actions. I'd call that just as far from the truth, but an otherwise pleasant lie.
The funny thing was that they properly gendered all positive personae appearing in their publications. But they forgot about the negative appearances.
So it would be "the captain/ness is steering the ship into the harbour" but "the captain is leaving the sinking ship".
So check your bias next time you read a story. It's telling that you don't even notice all the negative portrayals of men anymore.
"Forgot".
In most stories, the protagonist (male or female) is chosen because they're extraordinary. While I might identify a bit with Harry Potter or Luke Skywalker, they're certainly not going to be people I think of when I try to think of who I am because they're so fantastically extraordinary.
On the other hand, Bart Simpson or Fresh Prince Will Smith? Or, considering the age I'm approaching, Al Bundy? I can identify with them a lot more, even with the negative traits.
The other issue is:
> Arn't they typically courageous, or intelligent, or unyielding, or strong, or determined?
Why do you have to be courageous, intelligent, unyielding, strong, or determined? Why are all of those the absolute "good" traits?
If you're not a super strategist, are you a bad person? What if you avoid conflict? Afraid of dogs? etc.
The "standard" of extraordinary manhood is incredibly high if you look at stories like that.
The thing is these are all prime-time sitcoms and comedies.
There's just as many popular shows where this isn't the case. Dramas rarely have this sort of soft, incorrigible-but-loveable archetype.
I'm not super-current on my media, but Game of Thrones, Boardwalk Empire, Walking Dead, Mad Men... most everything on HBO, Showtime, AMC, and FX run with strong, deep, emotionally complex male characters who grow and discover themselves, alongside the female characters.
And the male characters in these dramas are, on the whole, much more identifiable and aspirational.
Those characters are aspirational? They're almost all murderers, thieves, adulterers, or worse. I wouldn't want my son to be anything like any of those characters.
Part of the problem with the antihero-as-role-model is that it also conveys that being interesting is important. And to be interesting, it's good (or at least OK) for a man to have significant character flaws. So many soon-to-be-men think having your crap together is boring and thus unattractive. And many women think falling for a flawed man and fixing him is a romantic notion.
Your son probably shouldn't be like any character on television, whether that's the antihero or bumbling means-well-but-worth-nothing comedy father. But
Interesting doesn't require character flaws. Those exist in characters in stories to provide space for developmental arcs -- space for us to see them grow and change, something we all want to do. They exist to make a point out of a story.
And these folks are so identifiable because we all sometimes feel like a not-put-together person. Heck, look how popular Breaking Bad, or House, M.D. were -- Laurie and Cranston were insanely popular in those roles because in their ridiculousness they reflected traits many people understand. Though I doubt their performances encouraged any meaningful percentage of the nation's fathers to start cooking meth, or medical professionals to treat people for lupus.
The story for a lot of these characters is that you can look like you have your shit together and still have space to learn, grow, evolve. Sure, it's in the context of murders and whatever because there's more drama there than "guy that goes to the office and has an ongoing feud with his HOA". But that doesn't invalidate the story, or directly encourage the audience to adopt the superficial story components.
That is a common motif. Is it easy being expected to be unyielding/strong/determined/etc? You have lower social value when you aren't adhering to this role. When you are adhering to this role you are making yourself disposable to a "higher cause". In other words making yourself cannon fodder or getting black lung in some coal mine.